51st  Congress,  )  HOUSE  OF  KEPRESEKTATIVES.     i  Keport 
1st  Session,     (  \  No.  928. 


BRIDGE  ACROSS  THE  HUDSON  RIYER  AT  NEW  YORK  CITY. 


March  21,  1890. — Referred  to  the  House  Calendar  and  ordered  to  be  printed. 


iMr.  Baker,  from  the  Committee  on  Commerce,  submitted  the  following 

REPORT: 

[To  accompany  H.  R.  3886.] 

The  Committee  on  Commerce,  to  whom  was  referred  bill  H.  R.  388G, 
entitled  "A  bill  to  authorize  the  construction  of  a  bridge  and  approaches 
at  New  York  City  across  the  Hudson  River,  to  regulate  commerce  in 
and  over  such  bridge  between  the  States  of  New  York  and  New  Jersey, 
and  to  establish  such  bridge  a  military  and  post  road,"  have  had  the 
same  under  consideration,  and  beg  leave  to  report,  in  lieu  thereof,  the 
following  amendment  in  the  nature  of  a  substitute: 

That  authorization  is  hereby  given  to  Jordan  L.  Mott,  John  King  McLanalian, 
James  Andrews,  Thomas  F.  Ryan,  Garrett  A.  Hobart,  F.  W.  Roebling,  Charles  J. 
Cauda,  Edward  F.  C.  Young,  Henry  Flad,  Gustav  Lmdenthal,  A.  G.  Dickinson, 
John  H.  Miller,  William  Brooktield,  Samuel  Rea,  William  F.  Shunk,  Philip  E.  Chapin, 
and  their  associates,  as  a  corporation  as  hereinafter  provided,  to  locate,  build,  main- 
tain, equip,  and  operate  a  bridge,  proper  approaches  thereto  and  terminals,  appur- 
tenances and  works  connected  therewith,  across  the  Hudson  River  in  and  between  the 
City  of  New#York,  in  the  State  of  New  York,  and  the  State  of  New  Jersey,  and  to  lay 
tracks  thereon  lor  the  connection  of  the  railroads  on  either  side  of  said  river  in  order 
to  facilitate  interstate  commerce  in  the  transportation  of  persons  and  property,  and 
for  vehicle,  pedestrian,  postal,  military,  and  other  purposes:  Provided,  That  said 
bridge  shall  have  not  less  than  six  railroad  tracks,  with  a  capacity  foi- four  additional 
tracks  for  future  enlargement,  and  shall  be  constructed  with  a  single  span  over  the 
entire  river  between  the  towers,  located  between  the  shore  and  the  established  pier- 
head lines  in  either  State,  and  at  an  elevation  above  the  river,  not  less  than  that  of 
the  existing  Brooklyn  Suspension  Bridge,  over  the  East  River,  and  which  elevation 
may  be  increased  by  the  Secretary  of  War  as  hereinafter  provided,  and  that  no  pier  or 
other  obstruction  to  navigation,  either  of  a  temporary  or  permanent  character,  shall 
be  constructed  in  the  river  between  said  towers. 

Sec.  2.  That  the  construction  of  said  bridge  shall  be  commenced  within  three 
years  after  the  passage  of  this  act,  and  shall  be  completed  within  ten  years  after 
the  commencement  of  construction  ;  but  that  the  Secretary  of  War  is  hereby  author- 
ized to  extend  the  time  for  the  commencement  of  construction  for  two  additional 
years  upon  cause  shown  by  the  company,  and  provided  that  the  Secretary  of  War 
shall  deem  such  cause  sufficient  and  satisfactory ;  and  that  if  tho  company  fail  to 
commence  the  construction  of  said  bridge  within  the  time  so  extended,  this  act  shall 
be  null  and  void.  And  the  company,  at  least  three  months  previous  to  commencing 
the  erection  of  said  bridge,  shall  submit  to  the  Secretary  of  War  a  plan  of  the 
bridge,  with  a  detailed  map  of  the  river  at  the  proposed  site  of  the  bridge,  and  for 
the  distance  of  one-half  of  a  mile  above  and  below  the  site,  with  such  other  infor- 
mation as  the  Secretary  of  War  may  require  for  a  full  and  satisfactory  understanding 
of  the  subject ;  and  the  Secretary  of  War  may,  upon  receiving  said  plans  and  map 
and  other  information,  order  a  hearing  before  a  board  of  engineers  appointed  by 
him  for  taking  testimony  of  persons,  interested  in  railroads  and  navigation,  relative 
to  the  clear  height  of  the  superstructure  above  ordinary  high  water;  such  clear 
height  shall  not  l3e  less  than  that  named  in  section  1  of  this  act,  and  the  Secretary  of 
War  may  thereupon  order  such  additional  clear  height  as  he  shall  deem  necessary 
for  the  security  of  navigation.  And  he  is  hereby  authorized  and  directed  upon 
being  satisfied  that  a  bridge  built  on  such  plan  and  at  said  locality  will  conform  to 


2        BRIDGE  ACROSS  THE  HUDSON  RIVER  AT  NEW  YORK  CITY. 


the  conditions  of  this  act,  to  notify  the  said  comparvy  that  he  approves  the  plans 
therefor;  vrherenpon  said  company  may  proceed  to  the  erection  of  said  bridge.  But 
until  the  Secretary  of  War  approve  the  plan  and  location  of  said  bridge,  the  erec- 
tion of  the  same  shall  not  be  commenced;  and  should  any  change  be  made  in  the 
plan  of  the  bridge  during  the  progress  of  the  work  thereon,  such  change  shall  like- 
wise be  subject  to  the  approval  of  the  Secretary  of  War. 

Sec.  3.  That  the  bridge,  with  its  approaches  and  railroad  thereover,  constructed  under 
the  provisions  of  this  act  shall  he  a  lawful  structure,  and  a  military  and  ptost  road,  hut  no 
toll  charges  shall  he  made  for  the  transmission  over  the  same  of  the  mails  of  the  United 
States,  or  for  the  right  of  way  for  United  States  postal  telegraph  purposes. 

Sec.  4.  That  for  the  purpose  of  carrying  into  effect  the  objects  stated  in  this  act, 
the  persons  named  in  the  lirst  section  hereof,  and  their  associates,  are  hereby  con- 
stituted and  created  a  body  corporate  in  law,  to  be  known  as  the  North  River  Bridge 
Company,  and  by  that  name,  style,  and  title  shall  have  perpetual  succession;  may 
sue  and  be  sued,  implead  and  be  impleaded,  complain  and  defend,  in  all  courts  of  law 
and  equity,  of  record  and  otherwise;  may  make  and  have  a  common  seal,  and  shall 
have  and  possess  all  the  rights,  powers,  franchises,  and  privileges,  incident  to  or 
usually  possessed  by  such  companies.  It  may  receive,  purchase,  and  also  acquire  by 
lawful  appropriation  and  condemnation  upon  making  proper  compensation  therefoi', 
to  be  ascertained  according  to  the  laws  of  the  State  within  which  the  same  is  located, 
real  and  personal  property  and  rights  of  property',  and  may  mortgage,  encumber, 
charge,  pledge,  grant,  lease,  sell,  assign,  and  convey  the  same.  And  to  aid  in  the 
construction  of  said  bridge  and  approaches  thereto,  and  railroad  terminals,  appur- 
tenances, and  works  connected  therewith,  and  to  carry  out  the  purposes  of  this  act, 
the  said  North  River  Bridge  Company  is  hereby  authorized  to  issue  its  bonds  and 
secure  the  same  by  mortgage  on  its  property  and  rights  of  property  of  all  kinds  and 
descriptions,  and  its  franchise  to  be  a  corporation.  And  generally  and  specially  for 
the  fully  carrying  out  of  the  purposes  and  intentions  of  this  act,  the  said  North  River 
Bridge  Company,  and  its  successors,  shall  have  and  possess  all  such  rights  and  powers 
to  enter  upon  lands,  and  for  the  purchase,  acquisition,  condemnation,  appropriation, 
occupation,  possession,  and  use  of  real  estate  and  other  property,  and  for  the  location, 
construction,  operation,  and  maintenance,  of  eraid  bridge,  with  its  approaches,  termi- 
nals, and  appurtenances,  as  are  possessed  by  railroad  or  bridge  companies  in  the  States 
of  New  York  and  New  Jersey,  respectively.  That  all  persons,  railroad  and  telegraph 
companies,  respectively,  desiring  to  use  said  bridge  shall  have  and  be  entitled  to  eq  ;ial 
rights  and  privileges  in  the  passage  over  and  the  use  of  the  same  and  the  approaches 
thereto,  for  a  reasonable  compensation,  to  be  approved  by  the  Interstate  Commerce 
Commission,  as  hereinafter  determined,  and  to  be  paid  to  the  North  River  Bridge 
Company,  which  is  hereby  duly  empowered  to  collect  the  same.  And  sufficient  track- 
age and  terminal  facilities  shall  be  provided  for  all  railroads  desiring  to  use  said  bridge 
and  appurtenances.  In  case  any  litigation  arises  out  of  the  construction,  use,  or 
operation  of  said  bridge  or  approaclies  thereto  and  railroad  thereon,  or  for  the  con- 
demnation or  the  appropriation  of  jjroperty  in  connection  therewith  under  this  act, 
the  cause  so  arising  shall  be  heard  and  tried  before  the  circuit  court  of  the  United 
States  for  the  judicial  district  in  which  the  bridge  or  one  of  the  approaches  is  located. 
Applications  for  condemnation  or  appropriation  of  property  shall  be  made  in  the  cir- 
cuit court  of  the  United  States  for  the  district  in  which  such  property  is  situated  upon 
the  petition  of  said  company,  and  the  hearing  and  trial  of  all  other  proceedings  thereon 
shall  conform  as  nearly  as  may  be  to  the  practice  in  the  courts  of  the  State  in  which 
such  district  is  situated,  in  the  case  of  condemnation  or  appropriation  of  property  for 
railroads. 

Sec.  5.  That  the  Interstate  Commerce  Commission  is  hereby  authorized  to  require 
the  said  North  River  Bridge  Company,  in  addition  to  such  reports  as  it  may  lawfully 
require  of  railroad  companies,  a  statenient  certified  to  by  the  president  of  said  North 
River  Bridge  Company  of  the  actual  cash  expenditure  for  all  property  acquired  and 
for  the  cost  of  construction  of  all  structures  and  appurtenances,  for  equipment  and 
for  other  proper  and  legitimate  expenses  incurred  under  this  act ;  said  statement  shall 
be  made  on  the  completion  of  all  the  work  and  before  the  said  North  River  Bridge 
Company  shall  collect  tolls  from  the  connecting  railroad  companies.  The  Interstate 
Commerce  Commission  shall  be  authorized  to  employ,  at  the  expense  of  said  North 
River  Bridge  Company,  such  expert  accountants,  as  it  may  appoint  and  direct  to  ex- 
amine the  accounts  of  said  North  River  Bridge  Company  for  the  purpose  of  verifying 
the  said  actual  cash  expenditures  under  this  act.  And  the  said  ascertained  cash  ex- 
penditures shall  form  the  basis  on  which  the  Interstate  Commerce  Commission  shall 
approve  the  toll  charges,  to  be  paid  by  the  connecting  railroad  companies  to  said 
North  River  Bridge  Company,  for  the  use  of  said  bridge,  approaches,  tracks,  and  ter- 
minals in  such  manner,  that  whenever  the  net  revenue,  derived  from  said  toll  charges 
after  paying  all  expenses  for  the  proper  and  safe  operation  and  maintenance  of  its 
property,  and  after  paying  all  taxes,  and  after  deducting  five  per  centum  of  the  gross 
revenue  for  the  sinking  fund,  to  be  applied  to  the  liquidation  of  any  indebtedness, 


BRIDGE  ACROSS  THE  HUDSON  RIVER  AT  NEW  YORK  CITY.  3 


stiall  exceed  ten  per  centum  on  the  above  specified  casli  expenditure,  the  Interstate 
Commerce  Commission  may  order  a  reduction  of  toll  charges:  Provided,  Thai  said 
reduction  shall  not  be  ordered  ofteuer  than  once  in  three  years:  Provided  fnriher. 
That  nothing  contained  in  this  section  shall  be  construed  as  establishing  contract 
rights  between  tlfe  United  States  and  said  North  River  Bridge  Company  as  to  the  rate 
of  toll  authorized  to  be  collected,  but  this  section  shall  be  subject  to  amendment  or 
repeal  as  is  provided  in  relation  to  every  other  section  of  this  act. 

Sec.  6.  That  the  government  and  direction  of  said  company  shall  be  vested  in  a 
board  of  seven  directors,  who  shall  be  stock holuers  of  record,  and  who  shall  hold  their 
office  for  one  year,  and  until  their  successors  are  duly  elected  and  qualified.  The 
said  directors,  five  of  whom  shall  be  a  quorum,  shall  elect  one  of  their  number  presi- 
dent; they  shall  also  appoint  a  secretary  and  treasurer.  The  directors  of  said  com- 
pany shall  have  power  to  make  such  prudential  by-laws  as  they  shall  deem  proper  for 
the  management  and  disposition  of  the  stock,  property,  and  business  afl'airs  of  said 
company,  not  contrary  to  the  laws  of  the  United  States,  and  prescribing  the  duties  of 
officers,  artificers,  and  servants  that  may  be  employed,  for  filling  vacancies,  and  for 
carrying  on  all  business  within  the  objects  and  purposes  of  said  company.  There 
shall  be  an  annual  meeting  of  the  stockholders,  for  choice  of  directors,  to  be  held  at 
such  time  and'  place,  under  such  conditions,  and  upon  such  notice  as  the  by-laws  may 
prescribe  ;  and  such  directors  shall  annually  make  a  report  of  their  doings  and  of  the 
business  of  the  company  to  the  stockholders,  a  copy  of  which,  sworn  to  and  signed  by 
the  president  of  the  company,  shall  be  transmitted  to  the  Interstate  Commerce  Com- 
mission. Failure  to  elect  directors  on  the  day  fixed  by  said  by-laws  shall  not  be 
deemed  to  dissolve  said  company,  but  such  election  may  be  held  on  any  day  ap- 
])oiuted  thereafter  by  the  directors,  first  giving  thirty  days'  notice  thereof  in  manner 
provided  in  said  by-laws.  The  capital  stock  of  said  company  shall  consist  of  not  less 
than  ten  thousand  shares  of  one  hundred  dollars  each,  which  shall  in  all  respects  be 
deemed  personal  property,  and  shall  be  transferable  in  such  manner  as  the  by-laws  of 
said  company  shall  provide  ;  but  no  share  shall  be  transferable  until  all  cjills  thereon 
shall  have  been  fully  paid  in,  and  it  shall  not  be  lawful  for  said  company  to  use  any 
of  its  funds  in  the  purchase  of  any  stock  in  its  own  or  any  other  corporation.  The 
amount  of  such  capital  vstock  may  be  increased  upon  the  vote  of  two-thirds  of  such 
stock  of  said  company  at  any  time  outstanding. 

Sec.  7.  The  real  and  personal  property  of  the  company  shall  be  subject  to  taxation 
for  State,  county,  and  municipal  purposes  in  the  State  where  the  same  is  located, 
but  at  no  higher  rate  than  other  real  and  personal  property  in  the  State. 

Sec.  8.  That  the  said  North  River  Bridge  Company  shall  maintain  on  the  bridge, 
at  its  own  expense,  from  sunset  to  sunrise,  such  lights  or  signals  as  the  United  States 
Light-House  Board  shall  prescribe. 

Sec.  9.  Thalfuothing  in  this  act  shall  be  held  or  construed  to  in  any  manner  in- 
volve the  United  States  Government  in  any  pecuniary  obligations  whatever,  other 
than  the  payment  of  tolls  over  said  bridge  and  approaches  for  troops  and  munitions 
of  war,  for  which  no  higher  charge  per  mile  shall  be  made  than  the  rate  paid  to  rail- 
roads connecting  with  said  bridge;  but  Congress  hereby  reserves  the  right  to  alter, 
amend,  or  repeal  this  act  as  the  contingencies  of  commerce  or  the  public  good  may  re- 
quire,  and  said  company  shall  further  be  subject  to  the  provisions  of  the  interstate- 
commerce  laws,  and  any  amendments  and  supplements  thereof. 

The  bill  is  by  this  substitute  amended  so  as  to  embrace  substantially 
the  recommendations  of  the  Secretary  of  War. 

The  committee  have  further  provided  by  the  new  section,  incorporated 
in  the  substitute  as  section  7,  that  the  real  and  personal  property  of 
said  company  shall  be  subject  to  taxation  in  the  States  of  New  York 
and  New  Jersey  the  same  as  other  real  and  personal  property  therein. 

The  committee  submit  herewith  as  a  part  of  their  report  the  several 
letters  from  the  Hon.  Secretary  of  War  relating  to  the  said  bridge,  and 
also  the  several  exhibits  embraced  in  the  appendix  marked  Exhibits  A 
to  P. 

NECESSITY  FOR  BRIDGE. 

The  necessity  for  a  bridge  over  the  Hudson  Eiver  at  New  York  is 
well  known,  as  was  fully  attested  before  your  committee  at  the  hearings 
on  the  subject. 

The  number  of  passengers  crossing  the  Hudson  Eiver,  between  the 
State  of  New  Jersey  and  the  city  of  New  l^ork,  is  estimated  to  exceed 
40,000,000  per  year,  about  half  of  which  are  railroad  passengers. 


4 


BRIDGE  ACROSS  THE  HUDSON  RIVER  AT  NEW  YORK  CITY. 


The  danger  of  the  present  method  of  crossing  the  river  by  stean. 
ferry-boats  during  fog  and  in  winter  time  from  ice,  together  with  loss 
of  time  by  failure  to  make  proper  railroad  connections,  and  also  the 
inconvenience  of  landing  along  a  water-front  overcrowded  with  teams 
and  vehicles  oi  all  descriptions,  have  been  shown  to  the  committee. 

The  necessity  for  such  improvement  as  the  proposed  bridge  will  greatly 
increase  from  year  to  year,  according  to  the  growth  of  the  country  and 
increase  of  traffic  to  and  from  New  York  City,  so  that  the  speedy  con- 
struction and  completion  of  such  a  bridge,  with  its  increased  facilities 
for  crossing  the  Hudson  River,  is  of  great  importance,  not  oidy  to  the 
immediate  neighborhood  of  IS^ew  York  City,  but  to  the  country  south, 
west,  and  north  of  it. 

Its  commercial  importance  would  seem  to  be  as  great  as  its  engineer- 
ing magnitude  is  unprecedented. 

In  the  appendix  is  given  a  detailed  description  of  tlie  colossal  structure 
proposed. 

It  will  have  a  length,  including  the  necessary  approaches,  of  5J  miles. 

It  is  a  commendable  feature  of  tbis  enterprise  that  the  plans  for  the 
bridge  and  the  method  of  its  construction  have,  for  several  years  past, 
engaged  the  careful  attention  of  eminent  engineers,  who  have  succeeded 
in  gathering  together  representatives  of  large  cajntal,  who  express 
themselves  anxious  and  willing  to  carry  this  great  work  to  a  speedy 
completion,  provided  the  project  is  approved  by  Congress  as  one  worthy 
of  its  recognition,  as  asked  for  in  the  bill  which  they  have  presented. 
And  it  is  promised  on  behalf  of  the  incorporators  named  in  the  bill  that 
the  structure  which  it  is  proposed  to  erect  will  surpass  all  that  the  world 
has  yet  witnessed  in  the  art  of  bridge  construction. 

THE  BRIDaE  AS  A  NATIONAL  WORK. 

Your  committee  is  of  the  opinion  that  the  bridge  should  be  a  national 
work,  built  under  national  authorization,  and  its  operation  should  be 
under  the  supervision  of  the  National  Government  for  the  following 
reasons : 

(1)  The  bridge  is  not  only  of  commercial  importance  to  the  immediate 
neighborhood  of  New  York  City,  but  to  the  whole  country.  It  will  be 
a  gateway  for  the  commerce  of  all  the-  surrounding  States  into  and  out 
of  the  commercial  metropolis  of  the  country. 

The  trafiQc  over  the  bridge  will  be  wholly  interstate,  and  therefore 
should  be  subject  to  national  regulation  under  the  United  States  inter- 
state-commerce laws. 

(2)  To  prevent  abuses  of  administration  and  conflict  of  authority  in 
the  regulation  of  its  afiairs  under  the  incongi:uous  laws  of  two  States, 
the  bridge  company  should  be  placed  directly  under  the  protection  and 
control  of  the  TJnited  States  Government. 

(3)  It  has  been,  with  apparent  good  reasons,  shown  to  your  commit- 
tee that  the  raising  of  the  vast  amount  of  necessary  money  can  be 
accomplished  with  less  cost  to  the  undertaking  under  one  charter,  and 
that  to  be  a  national  one,  than  would  be  possible  under  the  composite, 
conflicting,  and  patchwork  legislation  of  two  States,  to  be  supple- 
mented by  an  act  of  Congress  of  the  United  States.  The  legal  reasons 
for  this  view,  as  submitted  to  the  committee,  are  given  in  the  appendix 
in  the  briefs  of  counsel. 

(4)  The  colossal  magnitude  of  the  work,  the  difficulties  of  its  con- 
struction, and  the  vastness  of  its  commercial  importance  make  it  a  fit 
subject  for  direct  national  recognition. 


BRIDGE  ACROSS  THE  HUDSON  RIVER  AT  NEW  YORK  CITY.  5 

In  retuiii  for  this  national  recognition  it  is  provided  that  the  United 
States  shall  pay  no  toll  charges  over  the  bridge  for  the  transmission 
of  the  mails  or  for  the  right  of  way  for  United  States  postal  tele- 
graph purposes.  The  saving  which  may  be  thus  obtained  for  the  Gov- 
ernment is  not  accurately  ascertained,  but  is  estimated  to  be  over 
$150,000  per  year,  and  will  be  growing  as  the  mail  traffic  increases  with 
the  growing  population. 

To  throw  proper  safeguards  around  the  enterprise  against  fictitious 
capitalization  and  against  financial  abuses,  it  is  provided  that  the  books 
of  the  company  shall  be  subject  to  examination  by  expert  accountants 
to  be  appointed  by  the  Interstate  Commerce  Commission,  to  ascertain 
the  actual  cash  cost  of  the  whole  work,  and  the  tolls,  which  the  com- 
pany shall  be  allowed  to  collect,  shall  be  based  on  that  cash  cost.  The 
whole  financial  operations  of  the  company  are  thereby  subject  to  the 
most  searching  governmental  inspection  and  control.  As  the  traffic 
may  increase  over  the  bridge,  the  benefits  therefrom  are  not  to  accrue 
to  the  company  in  the  form  of  increased  dividends,  but  to  the  people 
in  the  form  of  reduced  toll  rates. 

It  is  also  provided  that  the  Government  shall  be  under  no  pecuniary  " 
obligations  of  any  kind  in  connection  with  the  work. 

The  exhibits  accompanying  this  report,  marked  A,  B,  C,  D,  E,  F,  G, 
H,  I,  J,  K,  L,  M,  X,  O,  P,  are  herewith  returned  and  made  a  part  of  the 
report,  in  order  that  a  fnller  and  clearer  understanding  of  the  magni- 
tude of  the  proposed  undertaking  may  be  had,  and  of  the  reasons 
which  have  led  your  committee  to  report  the  bill  as  proposed  to  be 
amended  by. the  substitute.  The  title  should  be  amended  by  inserting 
before  the  words  "  To  authorize"  the  words  "To  incorporate  the  Xorth 
Eiver  Bridge  Company  and." 


# 


6        BRIDGE  ACROSS  THE  HUDSON  RIVER  AT  NEW  YORK  CITY. 


VIEWS  OF  MR.  TURNER,  OF  GEORGIA. 


I  concur  in  that  part  of  the  bill  which  authorizes  the  construction  of 
a  bridge  across  the  Hudson  Kiver,  upon  such  terms  as  the  Chief  of  En- 
gineers recommends  and  as  may  be  necessary  to  protect  the  interests 
of  navigation.  This  is  the  usual  practice  in  such  cases.  But  I  dissent 
from  those  provisions  of  the  bill  which  create  a  bridge  corporation 
within  two  States  and  confer  corporate  franchises,  and  which  also 
grant  power  to  condemn  and  appropriate  private  property  within  a 
State  under  proceedings  in  the  United  States  courts.  Waiving  now 
any  discussion  of  the  precedents  on  this  subject,  no  sufficient  reason 
has  been  given  for  not  asking  these  extraordinary  grants  from  the 
States  of  New  Jersey  and  New  York. 

H.  G.  Turner. 


APPENDIX. 


MEMORANDUM  OF  EXHIBITS  REFERRED  TO  IN  THE  PRECEDING  REPORT. 

Exhibit  A. — Letter  of  Brigadier  General  Casej^,  Chief  of  Engineers,  to  the  Sec- 
retary of  War,  dated  January  23,  1890. 

Exhibit  B.— Letter  of  the  Secretary  of  War,  dated  January  24,  1890,  transmitting 
Exhibit  A  to  the  chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Commerce. 

Exhibit  C. — Letter  of  the  Secretary  of  War,  dated  January  31,  1890,  transmitting 
Exhibit  D  to  the  chairman. 

Exhibit  D.— Copy  letter  from  the  Corps  of  Engineers,  U.  S.  Army,  dated  July  10, 
1888,  relating  to  H.  R.  10642,  Fiftieth  Congress,  second  session,  and  S.  3250,  same 
Congress,  having  reference  to  the  same  project. 

Exhibit  E.— Letter  dated  February  4,  1890,  from  the  Board  of  Engineers,  U.  S. 
Army,  to  the  Chief  of  Engineers. 

Exhibit  F. — Letter  dated  February  12,  1890,  transmitting  Exhibits  E  and  G  to  the 
chairman,  having  reference  to  the  bill  H.  R.  3886. 

Exhibit  G. — Letter  dated  February  10,  1890,  from  the  Chief  of  Engineers  to  the 
Secretary  oi"  War,  having  reference  to  the  same  bill. 

Exhibit  H. — Detailed  description  of  the  proposed  North  River  bridge,  made  he- 
fore  the  committee  by  Gustav  Lindenthal,  the  designer  and  architect  thereof,  with 
views  and  diagrams. 

Exhibit  I. — Tlje  argument  of  Mr.  Lindenthal,  made  before  the  committee  in  behalf 
of  the  project. 

Exhibit  J. — Legal  briefs  and  opinions,  by  John  K.  Cowen  and  J.  E.  D.  Cross,  pre- 
sented to  the  committee  in  response  to  their  request  for  information  upon  the  ques- 
tions stated. 

Exhibit  K. — Opinion  and  remarks  of  Charles  F.  McLean  upon  the  power  of  Con- 
gress to  authorize  the  powers  proposed  to  be  conferred  by  the  bill. 

Exhibit  L. — Opinion  and  remarks  of  M.  H.  Houseman  before  the  committee. 

Exhibit  M. — Remarks  of  James  Andrews  before  the  committee. 

Exhibit  N. — Remarks  of  Samuel  Rea,  engineer,  before  the  committee  in  relation 
to  the  proposed  project. 

Exhibit  O.— Remarks  of  Alexander  D.  Anderson  upon  the  public  necessity  and 
importance  of  the  proposed  bridge. 

Exhibit  P. — Extracts  from  press  comments  in  relation  to  the  proposed  bridge. 


7 


8        BRIDGE  ACROSS  THE  HUDSON  RIVER  AT  NEW  YORK  CITY. 


Exhibit  A. 

Office  of  the  Chief  of  Engineers, 

United  States  Army, 
WasJirngton^  D.  (7.,  January  23,  1890. 

Sir  :  I  have  the  liouor  to  return  herewith  H.  E.  3886,  Fifty-first  Con- 
gress, first  session,  A  bill  to  authorize  the  coustructiou  of  a  bridge 
and  approaches  at  New  York  City  across  the  Hudson  Kiver,  to  regulate 
commerce  in  and  over  such  bridge  between  the  States  of  New  York 
and  New  Jersey,  and  to  establish  such  bridge  a  military  and  post 
road,"  and  to  recommend  the  following  amendments  thereto : 

Section  1,  lines  23  to  27,  strike  otit  all  of  this  section  after  the  word 
"  lines"  in  line  23. 

Section  2,  line  15,  strike  out  the  words  ^'  or  reasonable;"  for,  if  left 
in,  these  words  would  simply  tend  to  complicate  the  case,  and  render 
the  determination  of  the  question  of  the  height  of  the  bridge  uncer- 
tain and  difficult. 

As  it  is  important  to  fix  a  time  limit  for  the  commencement  and  com- 
pletion of  the  bridge,  the  following  additional  section  is  recommended: 

Sec.  9.  That  plans  satisfactory  to  tbe  Secretary  of  War  for  said  bridge  shall  be 
submitted  to  him  witbiu  one  year  after  tbe  passage  of  tbis  act.  and  tbe  construction 
ol"  said  bridge  sball  be  commenced  within  one  year  after  the  approval  of  the  plans  by 
the  Secretary  of  War,  and  tbe  structure  shall  be  completed  within  ten  years  from  the 
date  of  said  approval ;  otherwise  the  provisions  of  this  act  sball  be  null  and  void. 

A  copy  of  H.  R.  3886  with  the  proposed  amendments  indicated  thereon 
is  herewith  submitted,  and  as  thus  amended  I  know  of  no  objection  to 
its  passage,  so  far  as  the  interests  of  navigation  are  concerned. 

The  letter  from  the  chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Commerce  was  re- 
ceived here  to-day  and  a  reply  is  asked  by  to-morrow,  the  24:th.  If 
time  had  allowed  this  bill  w^ould  have  been  referred  to  a  I3oard  of  Engi- 
neers for  report,  but  as  report  must  be  made  at  once,  in  order  to  reach 
the  committee  by  to-morrow,  the  above  is  respectfully  submitted. 
Very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

Thos.  Lincoln  Casey, 
Brig,  Gen.^  Chief  of  Engineers. 

Hon.  Redfield  Proctor, 

Secretary  of  War. 


Exhibit  B. 

War  Department, 
Washington  City,  January  24,  1890. 
Sir:  In  returning  herewith  H.  R.  388G,  ''To  authorize  the  construction 
of  a  bridge  and  approaches  at  New  York  City,"  etc.,  which  was  referred 
to  this  Department  for  its  views  thereon,  I  beg  to  invite  atteuliou  to 
the  accompanying  report  of  the  Chief  of  Engineers,  in  which  certain 
amendments  and  additions  to  the  bill  are  suggested,  and  to  the  inclosed 
copy  of  the  bill  on  which  are  indicated  the  amendments  and  additions 
referred  to. 

Very  respectfully, 

Redfield  Proctor, 

Secretary  of  War, 

Hon.  Chas.  S.  Baker, 

Chairman  of  Committee  on  Commerce,  House  of  Ee^resentatives. 


BRIDGE  ACROSS  THE  HUDSON  RIVER  AT  NEW  YORK  CITY. 


9 


Exhibit  C. 

War  Department, 
Washington,  January  31,  1890. 
Sir  :  In  response  to  your  request  of  the  27tli  instant  I  have  the  honor 
to  inclose  herewith  a  copy  of  the  report  of  the  Board  of  Engineers,  dated 
July  10,  1888,  upon  House  bill  10G42,  Fiftieth  Congress,  first  session, 
"  To  authorize  the  construction  of  a  bridge  and  approaches  at  New  York 
City  across  the  Hudson  Eiver  in  and  between  the  States  of  New  York 
and  New  Jersey." 

Yery  respectfully, 

Kedfield  Proctor, 

JSecretary  of  War, 

Hon.  Charles  S.  Baker, 

Chairman  Committee  on  Commerce,  Rouse  of  Representatives, 


Exhibit  D. 

The  Board  of  Engineers,  Army  Building, 

New  YorJc  City,  July  10,  1888. 

General:  The  Board  of  Engineers,  to  whiih  was  referred,  by  your 
letter  of  July  3,  H.  R.  10642,  a  bill  To  authorize  the  construction  of 
a  bridge  and  approaches  at  New  York  Cit}^  across  the  Hudson  Kiver 
in  and  between  the  States  of  New  York  and  New  Jersey,"  and  by  your 
indorsement  of  July  9,  1888,  S.  3250,  a  bill  for  the  same  purpose,  has 
the  honor  to  reijort  that  these  bills  differ  but  slightly  in  language  and 
without  aff'ecting  the  subject  under  consideration  ;  that  the  Board  has 
this  day  held  a  public  meeting  upon  the  matter  contained  in  the  bills, 
the  proceedings  of  which  will  be  forwarded  as  soon  as  the  stenographic 
notes  can  be  transcribed ;  that  the  Board  has  carefully  considered  the 
bill  H.  E.  10642  and  recommends  the  following  changes  in  its  language: 

Page  2,  line  13:  Strike  out  the  word  "established"  and  insert  in  its 
stead  the  word  "existing." 

Page  2,  lines  14  and  15 :  Strike  out  the  words  "forty  feet  in  the  clear 
above  the  level  of  ordinary  high  water,  and  that  this  minimum  height" 
and  insert  in  their  stead  "forty-five  feet  in  the  clear  above  the  level  of 
mean  high  water  at  the  towers  of  the  bridge,  and  one  hundred  and  fifty- 
five  feet  above  the  same  level  at  the  center  of  the  main  span,  and  these 
heights;"  so  that  the  proviso  of  this  section  shall  read,  Provided,  That 
said  bridge  shall  be  constructed  with  a  single  span  over  the  entire  river 
between  the  existing  pier  lines  in  either  State,  and  at  an  elevation  over 
the  river  of  at  least  one  hundred  and  forty-five  feet  in  the  clear  above 
the  level  of  mean  high  water  at  the  towers  of  the  bridge,  and  one  hun- 
dred and  fifty-five  feet  above  the  same  level  at  the  center  of  the  main 
span,  and  these  heights  shall  be  exclusive  of  the  deflections  of  the  super- 
structure from  loads  oi  temperature  effects,  and  that  no  pier  or  piers  or 
other  obstructions  to  navigation  either  of  a  temporary  or  permanent 
character  shall  be  placed  or  built  in  the  river  between  said  pier  lines 
under  this  act." 

On  page  3,  section  4,  line  8:  After  the  word  "plans"  insert  "and 
location." 


10      BRIDGE  ACROSS  THE  HUDSON  RIVER  AT  NEW  YORK  CITY. 

In  section  5:  Strike  out  lines  1,  2,  3,  and  4  to  the  word  "provided" 
and  insert  that  plans  satisfactory  to  the  Secretary  of  War  for  said 
bridge  shall  be  submitted  to  him  within  one  year  after  the  passage  of 
this  act,  and  the  construction  of  said  bridge  shall  be  commenced  within 
one  year  after  the  approval  of  the  plans  by  the  Secretary  of  War,  and 
the  structure  shall  be  completed  within  ten  years  from  the  date  of  said 
approval ;  otherwise  the  provisions  of  this  act  shall  be  null  and  void." 

The  Board  is  of  opinion  that  if  these  changes  are  incorporated  in  H. 
R.  10642  they  will  sufficiently  guard  the  interests  of  the  United  States 
and  the  navigation  of  the  Hudson  River. 

The  copies  of  EL.  R.  10642  and  S.  3250,  with  the  letters  from  the  Com- 
mittee on  Commerce  of  the  House  of  Representatives  respectively  trans- 
mitting them  to  the  War  Department,  are  herewith  returned. 

Respectfully  submitted, 

Thos.  Lincoln  Casey, 
Colonel,  Corps  of  Engineers. 
Henry  L.  Abbot, 
Colonel  of  Engineers  J  Brevet  Brigadier- General. 

C.  B.  COMSTOCK, 

Colonel  of  Engineers  and  Brevet  Br  igadier-  General. 

D.  C.  Houston, 
Lieutenant  Colonel  of  Engineers, 

W.  R.  King, 

Major  of  Engineers, 

The  Chief  of  Engineers,  TJ.  S.  A., 

Washington,  D.  C. 


Exhibit  E. 

The  Board  of  Engineers,  Army  Building, 

New  YorJc  City,  February  4,  1890. 

General:  The  Board  of  Engineers,  to  which  was  referred,  by  your 
indorsement  of  January  28, 1890,  H.  R.  3886,  Fifty-first  Congress,  first 
session,  a  bill  ''To  authorize  the  coustruction  of  a  bridge  and  ap- 
proaches at  New  York  City  across  the  Hudson  River,  to  regulate  com- 
merce in  and  over  such  bridge  between  the  States  of  New  York  and 
New  Jersey,  and  to  establish  such  bridge  a  military  and  post  road," 
has  the  honor  to  report  as  follows : 

The  Board  concurs  in  the  recommendations  of  the  Chief  of  Engineers 
as  expressed  in  his  communication  of  January  23,  1890,  and  also  sug- 
gests in  this  instance  what  it  has  already  recommended  in  a  previous 
report  upon  a  similar  bill  for  the  construction  of  a  railroad  bridge  across 
North  River  at  New  York  City,  that  the  bridge  shall  be  constructed 
at  an  elevation  over  the  river  of  at  least  145  feet  in  the  clear  above  the 
level  of  mean  high  water  at  the  tower  of  the  bridge  and  155  feet  above 
the  same  level  at  the  center  of  the  main  span. 

The  question  whether  tlie  towers  should  be  built  out  to  the  pier-head 
line  or  should  bo  restricted  to  the  bulkhead  line  is  a  matter  dependiug 
on  location,  and  sliould  be  left  to  be  decided  by  the  Secretary  of  War 
when  the  location  of  the  bridge  is  definitely  determined. 

These  recommendations  will  be  carried  into  effect  by  the  following 
changes  in  the  language  of  the  proviso  in  section  1  of  the  bill ; 

Strike  out  the  words  ''the  established  pier"  in  line  19  and  substitute 


BRIDGE  ACROSS  THE  HUDSON  RIVER  AT  NEW  YORK  CITY.  11 


therefor  ^'towers  whose  location  between  the  shore  and  the  existing 
pier-head." 

After  the  word  "State"  in  line  20  add  ''shall  be  determined  by  the 
Secretary  of  War; "also  add  after  the  word  "and"  in  the  same  line 
'Hhat  the  bridge  shall  be  constructed." 

Strike  out  all  of  section  1  after  the  word  river  "  in  line  20  and  sub- 
stitute therefor  "of  at  least  one  hundred  and  forty-live  feet  in  the 
clear  above  the  level  of  mean  high  water  at  the  towers  of  the  bridge 
and  one  hundred  and  fifty-five  feet  above  the  same  level  at  the  center 
of  the  main  span,  and  these  heights  shall  be  exclusive  of  the  deflections 
of  the  superstructure  from  loads  or  temperature  effects ;  and  that  no 
pier  or  other  obstruction  to  navigation  either  of  a  temporary  or  per- 
manent character  shall  be  placed  or  built  in  the  river  between  said 
towers  under  this  act." 

As  thus  amended  the  proviso  will  read  as  follows  i 

Provided,  That  said  bridge  shall  have  not  less  than  six  railroad  tracks,  and  shall  be 
constructed  with  a  single  span  over  the  entire  river,  between  towers,  whose  location  be- 
tween the  shore  and  the  existing  pier-head  lines,  in  either  State,  shall  be  determined  by 
the  Secretary  of  War,  and  that  the  bridge  shall  be  constructed  at  an  elevation  above  the 
river  of  at  least  one  hundred  and  forty-live  feet  in  the  clear  above  the  level  of  mean 
high  water  at  the  towers  of  the  bridge  and  one  hundred  and  fifty-five  feet  above  the 
same  level  at  the  center  of  the  main  span,  and  these  heights  shall  be  exclusive  of  the 
deflections  of  the  superstructure  from  loads  or  temperature  effects  ;  and  that  no  pier 
or  orher  obstruction  to  navigation,  either  of  a  temporary  or  permanent  character, 
shall  be  placed  or  built  in  the  river  between  said  towers  under  this  act. 

The  papers  referred  by  you,  forming  the  subject  of  this  report,  are 
herewith  returned. 
Eespectfully  submitted. 

Henry  L.  Abbot, 
Colonel  of  Engineers,  Bvt.  Brig.  Gen.,  U.  J.., 

President  of  the  Board, 

;^  C.  B.  COMSTOCK, 

Colonel  of  Engineers,  Bvt.  Brig,  Gen,,  U,  S.  A, 

D.  C.  Houston, 

Colonel  of  Engineers, 

G.  L.  Gillespie, 
Lieutenant- Colonel  of  Engineers, 

The  Chief  of  Engineers,  U.  S.  A., 

Washington,  D.  C, 


Exhibit  F. 

*  War  Department, 

Washington  City,  February  12,  1890. 
Sir  :  I  return  herewith  H.  R.  Ko.  3886,  "  To  authorize  the  construc- 
tion of  a  bridge  and  approaches  at  iTew  York  City  across  the  Hudson 
River,  to  regulate  commerce  in  and  over  such  bridge  between  the  States 
of  New  York  and  New  Jersey,  and  to  establish  such  bridge  <a  military 
and  post  road,"  referred  to  this  Department  on  the  27th  ultimo,  and  in- 
vite your  attention  to  the  inclosed  report  of  the  Chief  of  Engineers, 


12      BRIDGE  ACROSS  THE  HUDSON  RIVER  AT  NEW  YORK  CITY. 


dated  tlie  lOth  instant,  and  accompanying  paper,  also  an  amended  copy 
of  the  bill  which  expresses  the  views  of  the  Department  thereon. 
Yery  respectfully, 

Redfield  Proctor, 

Secretary  of  War, 

Hon.  Chas.  S.  Baker, 

Chairman  Committee  on  Commerce^  Souse  of  Representatives, 


Exhibit  G. 

Office  of  the  Chief  of  Engineers, 

United  States  Army, 
WasMngton,  D.  C,  February  10,  1890. 

Sir:  I  have  the  honor  to  return  herewith  a  letter  from  Hon.  Charles 
S.  Baker,  M.  C,  chairman  of  the  House  Committee  on  Commerce,  in- 
closing for  report  of  a  Board  of  Engineers  a  copy  of  H.  E.  3886,  Fifty- 
first  Congress,  first  session,  "A  bill  to  authorize  the  construction  of  a 
bridge  and  approaches  at  New  York  City  across  the  Hudson  River,  to 
regulate  commerce  in  and  over  such  bridge  between  the  States  of  New 
York  and  New  Jersey,  and  to  establish  such  bridge  a  military  and 
post  road,"  and  to  state  that  the  bill  was  referred  to  the  Board  of  En- 
gineers stationed  at  New  York  City,  a  copy  of  whose  report  thereon  is 
herewith  submitted. 

In  this  connection  attention  is  respectfully  invited  to  my  former  re- 
port on  this  bill,  dated  January  23,  1890,  and  in  accordance  with  my 
recommendations  therein,  and  with  the  recommendations  of  the  Board 
of  Engineers,  in  which  I  fully  concur,  I  have  the  honor  to  recommend 
the  following  amendments  to  the  bill: 

Section  1,  line  19  strike  out  the  words  "  the  established  pier"  and 
substitute  therefor  the  words  "towers  whose  location  between  the 
shore  and  the  existing  i^ier  head." 

Same  section,  line  20,  after  the  word  "State"  insert  the  words 
"  shall  be  determined  by  the  Secretary  of  War,"  and  after  the  word 
"and"  insert  the  words  "  that  the  bridge  shall  be  constructed  ;  "  also, 
after  the  word  "river,"  in  the  same  line,  strike  out  the  remainder  of 
the  section  and  substitute  therefor  the  following:  "  of  at  least  one  hun- 
dred and  forty-five  feet  in  the  clear  above  the  level  of  mean  high  water 
at  the  towers  of  the  bridge  and  one  hundred  and  fifty-five  feet  above 
the  same  level  at  the  center  of  the  main  span,  and  these  heights  shall 
be  exclusive  of  the  deflections  of  the  superstructure  from  loads  or  tem- 
perature effects  j  and  that  no  pier  or  other  obstruction  to  navigation, 
either  of  a  temporarj^  or  permanent  character,  shall  be  placed  or  built 
in  the  river  between  said  towers  under  this  act." 

Section  2,  line  4,  strike  out  the  word  "describe"  and  substitute 
therefor  the  word  "  prescribe." 

Same  section,  line  12,  after  the  word  "subject"  strike  out  the  re- 
mainder of  that  line  and  the  succeeding  lines  down  to  and  including 
the  word  "  river,"  in  line  16. 

As  it  is  important  to  fix  a  time  limit  for  the  commencement  and  com- 
pletion of  the  bridge,  the  following  additional  section  is  recommended: 

Sec.  9.  That  plans  satisfactory  to  tho  Secretary  of  War  for  said  bridge  shall  be 
submitted  toTiim  within  one  year  after  the  passage  of  this  act,  and  the  construction 
of  said  bridge  shall  be  commenced  within  one  year  after  the  approval  of  tho  plans  by 
the  Secretary  of  War,  and  the  structure  shall  bo  completed  within  ten  years  from  the 
date  of  said  approval ;  otherwise  the  provisions  of  this  act  shall  be  null  and  void. 


BRIDGE  ACROSS  THE  HUDSON  RIVER  AT  NEW  YORK  CITY.  13 


A  copy  of  H.  R.  3886  with  the  proposed  amendments  indicated  thereon 
is  herewith  submitted,  and  as  thus  amended  I  know  of  no  objection  to 
its  passage,  so  far  as  the  interests  of  navigation  are  concerned. 
\^ery  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

Thos.  Lincoln  Casey, 
Brig.  Gen.^  Chief  of  Engineers, 

Hon.  Redfield  Proctor, 

Secretary  of  War, 


Exhibit  H. 

description  of  the  proposed  north  river  bridge  at  new  york 
city,  by  gustav  lindenthal,  chief  engineer,  with  views  and 
diagrams. 

It  is  presumed  that  all  are  aware  of  the  present  antiquated  manner 
of  landing  passengers  in  Xew  York  City  from  the  railroads  now  ter- 
minating on  the  New  Jersey  side  of  the  Hudson  or  North  River.  There 
is  annoyance,  and  even  danger,  to  the  landed  passengers  on  over- 
crowded and  nasty  streets,  and  the  demand  for  better  facilities  has  re- 
peatedly and  urgently  been  made. 

It  has  led  to  the  attempt  of  tunneling  underneath  the  river,  but  tlie 
difficulties  are  great,  and  though  they  can  undoubtedly  be  overcome, 
they  point  to  tbe  necessity  of  a  more  convenient  method  of  crossing  the 
river,  as  far  as  the  railroads  are  concerned.  It  is  i)roper  to  state  that 
this  question  of  submarine  railroad  tunnels  has  been  carefully  consid- 
ered and  weighed  in  connection  with  the  other  possible  method  of  cross 
ing  the  river  by  a  bridge.  The  investigations  made  for  the  purpose 
have  led  to  tte  conclusion  that  submarine  tunnels  would  afford  no  re- 
lief to  the  railroads.  The  heavy  grades  necessary  for  diving  over  luO 
feet  under  the  river;  the  heavy  expense  for  maintenance  in  the  form  of 
pumping,  lighting,  and  ventilating ;  the  slow  speed  to  be  imposed  ou 
trains  for  reasons  of  safety;  the  manifestly  greater  risk  to  human  life 
iu  case  ot  wrecks  or  derailments;  the  well  known  aversion  of  travelers 
to  submarine' chilly  and  damp  tunnels,  with  the  incessant  and  unavoid- 
able roar;  tbe  vast  expense  of  an  adequate  underground  terminal  sta- 
tion in  the  lower  part  of  the  city,  liable  to  be  flooded  by  spring  floods, 
and  other  conditions  have  been  carefully  investigated. 

A  bridge  with  six  tracks  has  been  found  to  possess  greater  capacity 
for  traffic  volume  than  ten  submarine  tunnels.  A  bridge  with  ten 
tracks  is  equal  to  sixteen  submarine  single-track  tunnels.  It  has  also 
been  found  that  a  ten-track  bridge,  with  the  corresponding  terminal 
facilities,  would  cost  less  than  one-third  the  cost  of  the  corresponding 
tunnel  arrangement.  Another  advantage  for  the  bridge  is  that  it  will 
not  interfere  with  the  streets  in  any  manner,  because  the  bridge  ap- 
l)roaches  and  terminal  stations  are  to  be  on  a  level  high  above  the 
streets,  similar  to  the  arrangement  of  the  Pennsylvania  Railroad  sta- 
tion in  Philadelphia.. 

Tunnel  terminal  stations  can  evidently  not  be  elevated  above  the 
street.  They  can  also  not  be  on  the  surface  of  the  ground,  because 
there  would  then  be  grade  crossings  with  the  intersecting  streets  and 
such  would  not  be  allowed  in  New  York  City.  The  tunnel  terminals, 
therefore,  must  be  under  ground  and  under  the  streets.   We  know  from 


14      BRIDGE  ACROSS  THE  HUDSON  RIVER  AT  NEW  YORK  CITY. 


the  London  example  what  this  means:  Dark,  dingy,  damp,  and  un- 
healthy quarters,  full  of  smoke  and  noise.  Dirt  and  soot  everywhere 
and  unavoidable.  Everybody  glad  to  get  out  into  the  fresh  air  and  into 
daylight.  The  bridge  requires  no  pumping,  lighting,  or  ventilating. 
All  this  great  expense  for  submarine  tunnels  does  not  exist  for  abridge. 

But  it  is  also  proper  to  say,  that  submarine  tunnels  under  the  Hudson 
Eiver  are  a  necessity  for  local  travel  and  rapid  communication  between 
the  lower  part  of  New  York  City  and  Jersey  City.  The  present  ferry 
facilities  can  hardly  be  increased  ;  there  is  no  more  room  for  ferry  land- 
ings on  the  New  York  side  ;  the  ferry-boats  are  overcrowded  mornings 
and  evenings,  sometimes  to  a  dangerous  extent.  The  only  feasible  re- 
lief for  local  communication  will  be  by  means  of  submarine  tunnels,  two 
of  which  are  already  in  process  of  construction.  The  great  height  of 
the  bridge  and  its  location  too  far  away  from  the  lower  part  of  New 
York  City  will  not  very  much  accommodate  local  travel,  though  it  is 
considered  the  only  feasible  and  practical  solution  as  far  as  the  rail- 
roads are  concerned. 

The  obstacles  to  the  construction  of  a  bridge  across  the  North  River 
seemed  insurmountable.  The  only  kind  of  a  bridge  thought  of  was  one 
with  piers  in  the  river.  The  foundations  to  rock  would  be  very  deep, 
nearly  200  feet;  but  the  greatest  objection  was  that  such  piers  would 
greatly  damage  the  large  and  steadily  increasing  commerce  over  the 
most  magnificent  river  highway  in  the  United  States. 

The  writer  was  the  first  one  to  propose  to  bridge  the  North  Eiver,  at 
New  York  Cit3^  in  one  single  span,  and  to  present  fully  worked  out 
plans  for  the  same.  Descriptions  and  illustrations  of  the  bridge  have 
been  widely  published,  not  only  in  this  country,  but  everywhere  abroad 
during  the  last  two  years.  The  public  is,  therefore,  well  acquainted 
with  the  subject. 

The  importance  of  this  enterprise,  its  benefits  and  far-reaching  con- 
sequences to  the  city  of  New  York  and  vicinity,  can  hardly  be  over- 
estimated. 

The  bridge  is  designed  for  six  tracks,  but  will  be  built  to  carry  four 
additional  tracks,  or  ten  in  all,  should  it  become  necessary. 

Only  a  fraction  of  the  combined  capital  required  for  a  number  of 
double-track  bridges  will  build  a  single  structure,  stronger  and  more 
enduring  for  the  same  number  of  tracks.  For  instance,  a  double-track 
bridge  in  one  single  span  over  the  North  liiver  is  estimated  to  cost 
$9,000,000  for  construction  alone,  while  a  bridge  capable  of  carrying 
six  tracks  is  estimated  to  cost  $15,000,000 ;  and  $1,000,000  additional 
will  provide  for  four  more  tracks,  or  in  all,  ten  tracks  on  the  same 
structure.  Five  single  bridges  for  double  tracks  would  therefore  cost 
about  $45,000,000  for  construction  alone,  without  the  approaches,  sta- 
tions, and  without  right  of  wa3^  This  will  show  the  economy,  as  well  as 
the  necessity,  of  providing  one  bridge  large  enough  for  all  present  and 
future  needs,  and  one  station  for  all  the  western  roads  coming  into  New 
York. 

Of  all  the  methods  proposed  and  studied  for  an  entrance  into  New 
York  City,  either  by  submarine  tunnels  under  or  by  bridging  over  the 
Hudson  River,  the  plan  of  one  great  multiple  track  bridge  has  been 
found  to  be  the  relatively  cheapest  solution,  as  far  as  the  railroads  are 
concerned. 

The  construction  of  the  proposed  bridge,  gigantic  and  unprecedented 
as  are  its  proportions,  will  be  a  matter  of  much  less  relative  difficulty 
than  was  the  construction,  at  the  time,  of  either  the  East  River  bridge  or 
of  the  St.  Louis  bridge.    In  such  a  degree  have  the  manufacturing  and 


BRIDGE  ACROSS  THE  HUDSON  RIVER  AT  NEW  YORK  CITY.  15 


constructive  facilities  of  the  couDtry  improved  and  increased,  that  the 
cost  of  the  proposed  bridge  will  be  ouh^  little  more  than  one-half  of 
what  it  would  have  cost  twelve  years  ago. 

The  plans  are  worked  out  not  only  for  the  bridge,  but  also  for  the 
approaches  and  terminal  stations  at  both  ends,  without  which  the 
bridge  would  be  of  no  use. 

The  large  passenger  station  in  New  York  City,  to  be  located  in  the 
most  central  part  of  it,  is  for  two  decks,  accommodating  together  thirty 
tracks,  1,000  feet  long.  This  arrangement  has  been  chosen  on  account 
of  the  very  costly  right  of  way,  which  makes  it  advisable  to  use  height, 
rather  than  width,  for  obtaining  the  required  room.  The  track  plat- 
forms will  be  reached  by  stairways  and  numerous  elevators,  at  about 
the  same  height  as  the  present  elevated  railroad  stations. 

The  approaches  will  be  on  iron  viaducts  of  the  most  solid  construc- 
tion, with  buckle  plate  floors  and  stone  ballast,  and  partly  they  will  bo 
(tor  the  portion  next  to  the  station)  on  stone-arch  viaducts,  similar  to 
those  for  the  East  River  Bridge.  On  the  New  Jersey  side  the  approach 
will  begin  from  the  meadows  between  the  Hackensack  River  and  Bergen 
Hill.  This  latter  ridge  will  be  crossed  in  an  open  cut,  100  feet  wide. 
The  stone  quarried  out  of  this  cut  will  not  be  sufficient  by  one-half  to 
furnish  the  concrete  material  for  the  tower  foundations  and  anchorages, 
which  are  both  to  be  faced  with  granite  masonry. 

It  will  be  seen,  theh,  that  there  is  other  large  work  to  be  done  besides 
building  the  bridge,  and  an  idea  of  the  cost  can  be  obtained  from  the 
following  estimate: 

The  North  River  Bri(l<ie,  iuclndiDg  the  anchorages,  6,500  feet  long   $15,  000,  000 

The  approaches  of  stone  and  iron  and  the  connecting  railroad  switch- 
yards, engine-houses,  the  grand  terminal  station  building  and  appur- 

t»'uances    11,000,000 

Right  of  way,  interest  during  construction,  and  incidentals   14,  000,  000 

Total  c^t   40,000,000 

Great  as  is  this  cost,  it  is  fully  justified  by  the  traffic  in  sight.  But  the 
undertaking  is  feasible  only  when  all  the  railroads  can  cross  over;  for 
not  one  of  them — even  the  great  Pennsylvania  Railroad,  would  build  the 
bridge  and  terminal  improvements  singie-hauded,  because  for  the  tiuan- 
ci.il  burden  assumed  it  would  certainly,  by  law,  be  obliged  to  let  the 
other  rnilroads  cross  over  on  the  same  terms,  who  thus  would  share  in 
the  benefits  of  the  bridge  without  having  shared  the  burden  of  creat- 
ing ir. 

There  are  nearlj^  one  thousand  trains  arriving  and  departing  at  pres- 
ent per  day  from  the  terminal  stations  in  New  Jersey,  opposite  New 
York  City,  with  nearly  sixty  thousand  passengers. 

This  travel  is  growing  all  the  time,  and  by  the  time  the  bridge  will 
be  finished  (say  ten  years),  the  traffic  may  have  doubled  in  anticipation 
ol  its  completion. 

The  experience  with  the  Broad  Street  Station  of  the  Pennsylvania 
Railroad  in  Philadelphia,  with  the  Brooklyn  Bridge,  with  the  elevated 
railroads  in  New  York,  with  all  of  them,  was  that  the  most  liberal  esti- 
mates of  probable  traffic  were  largely  exceeded,  and  that  it  keeps  grow- 
ing steadily  to  unforeseen  proportions. 

This  points  out  the  necessity  of  providing  on  the  largest  scale  at- 
tainable in  the  plans  for  the  bridge  and  the  terminal  station,  for  a 
traffic,  tlian  which  a  larger  and  more  important  will  not  be  in  any  part 
of  the  Old  or  the  New  World. 

No  engineering  project  was  ever  proposed  of  greater  merit  at  it  its  iu- 


16 


BRIDGE  ACROSS  THE  HUDSON  RIVER  AT  NEW  YORK  CITY. 


ceptioD,  and  more  carefully  studied  in  its  preliminary  stage,  nor  of  so 
great  and  pressing  necessity. 

Mere  figures  would  not  give  an  adequate  impression  of  the  gij^antic 
work,  but  some  idea  ot  it  can  be  obtained  from  a  comparison  with  the 
great  East  Kiver  Bridge,  as  will  be  seen  from  the  following  data: 


Lenth,  iticlufling  ancliora<ies   feet.. 

Ih^ijihtol  anchoiao'es  do... 

Weigbt  of  each  auchar.ige    toua.. 

Lt'nyth  of  each  hxnd  span  feet.. 

Lenj^fli  of  middle  span   do... 

Size  of  towers  at  high-water  mark  do... 

Ileigbt  of  towers  from  high  water  do... 

Height  of  tower  from  the  deepest  foundation  to  top  do.. . 

Width  of  bridge  do... 

Height  above  high  water  do  .. 

Length  of  one  cable   do... 

limber  of  cables  

Finished  diameter  of  cable  inches.. 

Ts  uraber  of  raihoad  tracks  

Grade  on  bridge  per  cent.. 

Weight  of  iron  and  steel  in  the  structure  tons.. 

Allowable  speed  of  trains  miles  per  hour.. 

Cost  from  anchorage  to  anchorage,  exclusive  of  land  damages  


Brooklyn 
Bridge. 


3,  700 
85 
60,  000 
930 
1,  GfO 
140  bv  59 
"272 
350 
85 
135 
3,  580 
4 
15^ 
2 

6,750 
10 

$5,  600,  000 


*  In  the  clear. 


The  North  Eiver  Bridge  will  differ  from  the  East  Eiver  Bridge  also 
in  the  character  of  its  details. 

Thus  the  anchorages  will  be  accessible  in  every  part,  through  com- 
modious passages  and  chambers  in  the  interior  of  the  huge  anchor  ige 
mass.  In  the  East  River  Bridge  the  anchors  and  chains  are  buried  in 
the  masonry,  and  it  was  not  thought  necessary  to  make  them  accessible. 

The  towers  of  ihe  Korth  Eiver  Bridge  will  be  built  of  steel,  forming 
two  half-towers  with  eight  columns  each,  and  strongly  braced  together 
to  resist  the  action  of  tornadoes,  which  would  not  affect  the  structure 
any  more  than  it  would  a  solid  mountain. 

The  columns  will  be  7  feet  in  diameter  at  bottom,  and  taper  to  5  feet 
diameter  on  top ;  the  towers  can  be  erected  without  false  works ;  but 
the  greatest  difference  will  be  in  the  arrangement  and  construction  of 
the  cables. 

Thus,  in  the  East  Eiver  Bridge  the  cables  are  placed  side  by  side  a 
certain  distance  apart,  and  the  required  rigidity  for  the  roadway  is  ob- 
tained through  six  stiffening  trusses,  also  placed  side  by  side. 

In  the  North  Eiver  Bridge  the  cables  are  placed  in  pairs  above  each 
other  50  feet  apart,  with  the  bracing  between  them,  so  that  tiiey  form 
two  arched  girders  of  huge  proportions,  which  are  ca])able  of  giving 
very  great  rigidity  to  the  roadway  without  the  aid  of  stiffening  trusses, 
and  with  a  great  saving  of  material  and  weight.  But,  as  an  additional 
l)recaution  for  the  great  concentrated  loads  of  heavy  locomotives,  there 
is  under  each  of  these  arch-girders  a  stiffening  truss,  two  in  all,  which 
will  also  aid  in  resisting  the  effect  of  tornadoes  in  combination  with  the 
wind-cables.  These  are  four  in  number,  placed  on  top  and  below  the 
stiffening  girders;  each  wind-cable  will  have  a  diameter  of  10  inches, 
or  larger  than  the  diameter  of  the  East  Eiver  main  cables. 

In  this  way  the  required  rigidity  for  fast  trains  is  obtained  with  the 
least  possible  weight  of  the  suspended  structure.  In  no  other  way 
can  it  be  obtained  with  an  equal  economy  of  material  and  cost.  It  will 
be  admitted  that  a  bridge  over  which  train  s  would  have  to  run  slowly 


BRIDGE  ACROSS  THE  HUDSON  RIVER  AT  NEW  YORK  CITY.  17 

would  be  iuadequate  for  the  expected  traffic,  and  would  be  behind  the 
age.  The  regular  working  speed  over  the  bridge  is  to  be  30  miles  per 
hour. 

While  in  the  Brooklyn  bridge  the  cables  are  compacted  and  closely 
wrapped  with  wire  into  a  solid  cylindrical  shape,  in  the  North  Kiv^er 
bridge  the  cables  will  be  also  compacted  into  a  cylindrical  shape,  but 
will  be  covered  with  a  solid  sheet  mantle  or  steel  envelope,  leaving  an 
air  space  of  2  inches  all  around  the  wires  for  the  double  purpose  of 
protecting  the  cables  against  uneven  temperature  efltects  and  against 
the  weather.  The  water  will  be  more  thoroughly  and  certainly  ex- 
cluded by  the  solid  sheet  covering  than  can  be  the  case  with  wire- 
wrapping  only.  The  steel  envelopes  can  be  removed  for  the  inspection 
of  the  cables  whenever  needed.  The  preserv^ation  of  tbe  cable  is  thereby 
made  easier.  Linseed-oil  can  be  applied  readily  whenever  needed,  and 
the  wires  thoroughly  soaked  with  oil,  thus  preventing  rusting. 

The  architectural  features  of  the  bridge  have  been  well  considered. 
The  graceful  curves  of  the  cables,  the  simple  and  st  rong  form  of  the 
double  towers,  the  large-featured  architecture  of  the  anchorages,  all 
combine  to  make  the  structure  grand  and  harmonious  in  all  its  parts 
without  artiflcial  devices  or  ornamentation. 

There  is  no  other  place  in  the  world  requiring  such  a  long  span- 
bridge,  and  it  is  ver^^  probable  that  a  longer  span  will  never  be  pro- 
I)osed  or  designed  anywhere.  The  much-talked-of  bridge  over  the 
English  Channel  would  be  20  miles  long,  but  the  longest  spans  proposed 
for  it  do  not  exceed  1,800  feet.  It  is  the  length  of  span  and  not  of 
the  bridge  which  taxes  the  ingenuity  of  man  and  the  resources  of 
science,  for  tbe  longest  bridge  in  the  world  does  already  exist  in  the 
city  of  New  York  in  its  elevated  railroad,  33  miles  long,  as  one  con- 
tinuous bridge.  But  no  one  would  assume  that  as  the  greatest  achieve- 
ment in  bridge  engineering. 

Thus  the  time  has  arrived  when  the  manufixcturing  facilities  of  the 
country,  its  financial  prosperity,  and  the  resources  of  science  combine 
to  make  the  construction  of  this  great  work  possible. 
H.  Rep.  928  2 


I 

Profile  of  the  proposed  North  River  Bridge. 


on  riiiiir  .Scale. 


BRIDGE  ACROSS  THE  HUDSON  RIVER  AT  NEW  YORK  CITY.  19 


Exhibit  I. 

ARGUMENT  OF  MR.  LINDENTHAL  BEFORE  THE  COMMITTEE. 

Mr.  Chairman  aud  gentlemen  of  the  Committee  on  Commerce,  the 
subject  of  our  bill  (H.  E.  3886)  is  a  large  suspension  bridge  over  the 
Hudson  River  at  New  York  City,  for  which  we  respectfully  submit  our 
plans  to  ilkistrate  the  character  of  the  work  proposed.  As  to  the  ne- 
cessity aud  urgency  of  this  work  others  will  ask  permission  to  appear 
aud  to  speak  ;  I  beg  leave  to  Confine  myself  to  the  salient  engineering 
and  business  features. 

The  bridge  is  intended  for  railroads  and  other  purposes,  and  is,  as 
already  remarked,  to  have  one  single  span  over  the  Hudson  River  at 
its  narrowest  part  at  Hoboken.  It  is  intended  to  be  at  least  as  high 
as  the  Brooklyn  bridge,  and  higher  if  the  Secretary  of  War  should  so 
determine.  This  determination  can  not  be  fairly  made  except  after  a 
full  official  inquiry,  undertaken  after  the  final  plans  have  been  sub- 
mitted to  the  Secretary  of  War,  when  an  intelligent  hearing  of  the  rep- 
resentatives of  the  navigation  and  railroad  interests  can  be  had.  Such 
a  course  was  pursued  for  the  great  suspension  bridge  between  Kew 
York  and  Brooklyn  with  quite  satisfactory  results. 

The  height  of  the  Brooklyn  bridge  is  135  feet  at  the  middle  of  the 
span  above  ordinary  high  water  at  60^  Fahr.  The  superstructure  falls 
and  rises  in  summer  and  winter  respectively  2J  feet  from  the  position 
at  the  above  named  middle  temperature.  We  will  be  prepared  to  build 
the  North  River  bridge  of  greater  height  if  deemed  necessary  by  the 
Secretary  of  War,  after  a  full  investigation.  We  respectfully  ask  for 
such  a  procednreas  will  give  an  opportunity  for  an  intelligent  judgment 
on  the  question  of  height.  This  we  deem  necessary  for  the  safety  of 
the  public  and  passengers  using  it.  You  are  aware  of  the  very  much 
greater  exj^ense  of  operating  steep  grades.  To  illustrate  the  point, 
permit  me  to  mention  as  an  instance  the  mountain  grade  on  the  Penn- 
sylvania Railroad  from  Altoona  to  Gallitzin.  An  express  train  arriv- 
ing at  Altoona  from  the  East  is  cut  in  two  and  the  halves  taken  up  on 
the  horse-shoe  and  to  the  top  of  the  mountain  grade  as  separate  trains, 
or  an  extra  locomotive  is  attached  to  the  whole  train.  This  grade  is 
only  95  feet  per  mile. 

The  grade  on  the  New  York  approach  will  probably  be  steeper  than 
95  feet  per  mile,  because  the  distance  from  the  station  in  New  York  to 
the  river  will  be  necessarily  short  and  can  not  be  changed.  If  the  bridge 
were  made  very  high  then  the  New  York  approach  would  become  too 
steep  and  the  railroads  could  not  use  the  bridge.  It  would  require 
three  locomotives  to  get  an  express  train  over  the  bridge.  On  the 
other  hand,  great  risk  and  danger  would  result  from  the  unsafe  opera- 
tion of  a  train  descending  from  a  very  high  bridge  into  the  New  York 
station  on  rainy  days  when  the  brakes  are  liable  to  slip  and  cause  a 
runaway. 

It  is  obvious,  therefore,  that  the  question  of  height  is  one  that  should 
be  decided  only  when  all  the  facts  can  be  known  and  weighed.  Every 
inch  of  height  that  can  be  saved  without  injury  to  navigation  will  be  a 
distinct  benefit  to  the  millions  of  passengers  crossing  the  bridge  for 
centuries  to  come. 

The  time  of  three  years,  eventually  five  years  before  the  actual 
commencement  of  construction,  is,  in  our  judgment,  the  least  which 


20      BRIDGE  ACROSS  THE  HUDSON  RIVER  AT  NEW  YORK  CITY. 

can  safely  be  stipulated  for  this  colossal  structure.  It  will  require 
from  two  to  three  years  of  hard  work  for  the  acquisition  of  the  neces- 
sary lauds  aud  for  the  final  plans  and  estimates  depending  thereon. 
The  acquisition  of  the  necessary  lands  under  the  laws  of  the  States  of 
New  York  and  New  Jersey  may  be  delayed  by  litigation,  as  experience 
with  similar  undertakings,  and  particularly  in  the  case  of  the  Brooklyn 
bridge,  has  shown.  Furthermore,  it  is  now  the  rule  with  large  investors 
and  with  financial  institutions  that  plans  and  estimates  must  be  fully 
worked  out  before  the  money  is  paid.  The  failure  of  some  and  excess- 
iv^e  cost  of  other  large  engineering  works  have  been  caused  by  the  in- 
sufficient preliminary  work  and  from  the  want  of  time  for  careful  prepa- 
ration. As  long  as  the  company  has  no  right  to  enter  upon  lands  it 
can  not  make  borings  for  foundations,  and  a  great  part  of  the  prelim- 
inary work  depending  thereon  can  not  be  done. 

The  proposed  work  is  not  only  unprecedented  in  magnitude,  but  also 
in  character  of  construction,  and  should  not  be  mistaken  for  the  rou- 
tine work  of  an  ordinary  Missouri  or  Ohio  Eiver  bridge,  which  can 
commercially  be  made  to  order  in  any  of  the  existing  bridge  works,  and 
can  easily  be  built  in  two  years.  The  cost  of  our  bridge  will  be  greater 
than  that  of  all  the  existing  Missouri  and  Ohio  River  bridges  put  to- 
gether. 

The  time  of  construction  is  always  much  shortened  by  a  careful 
preparation  and  organization  of  the  work  before  it  is  commenced,  and,  in 
this  case,  the  acquisition  of  over  $13,000,000  worth  of  property  for  right 
of  way  is  a  condition  precedent  to  construction.  We  respectfully  sub- 
mit that  the  company  should  be  allowed  to  exercise  common  business 
prudence  in  the  undertaking,  and  should  have  no  unnecessary  risks 
thrown  upon  it.  The  experience  of  all  railroads  in  the  acquisition  of 
the  necessary  ground  for  large  terminal  stations  in  large  cities  shows 
that  delays  from  litigation  are  almost  unavoidable,  and  more  time  is 
usually  consumed  in  the  preparation  than  in  the  construction  of  such 
work. 

In  my  opinion  the  bridge  can  be  built  in  six  to  seven  years,  after 
everything  is  ready  for  pushing  the  work,  i.  e.,  the  detail  plans  for  every 
part  of  the  structure  worked  out,  estimates  prepared,  all  needed  tests 
and  experiments  made,  all  needed  land  acquired,  and  the  money  ready 
in  the  treasury. 

The  interests  of  the  bridge  company  will  require  a  speedy  comple- 
tion in  the  shortest  possible  time,  because  the  interest  account  on  the 
capital  invested  during  construction  is  a  great  and  controlling  item  for 
the  time  of  completion. 

Furthermore,  the  investors  can  not  receive  a  return  on  their  capital 
and  on  the  heavy  expenses  already  had  till  the  bridge  is  in  operation. 
Self-interest  is,  therefore,  the  greatest  incentive  for  the  speedy  com- 
pletion of  the  work,  and  in  fact  of  any  work,  undertaken  by  private 
capital. 

The  Brooklyn  bridge  required  fifteen  years  for  completion,  although 
as  a  private  undertaking  it  could  have  been  completed  in  perhaps  half 
the  time.  The  Forth  bridge  in  Scotland,  the  largest  now  in  the  world, 
just  opened  to  travel,  was  eight  years  in  building.  The  intention  of 
our  company  is,  if  possible,  to  have  the  bridge  finished  in  the  year 
1900  as  a  fitting  celebration  of  the  end  of  the  nineteenth  and  the  be^ 
ginning  of  the  twentieth  century. 

The  bridge  is  intended  to  be  located  so  that  all  the  railroads  now  or 
in  the  future  terminating  in  New  Jersey,  opposite  New  York  City,  may 
use  it  with  the  same  facility. 


BRIDGE  ACROSS  THE  HUDSON  RIVER  AT  NEW  YORK  CITY.  21 


From  our  investigatious  we  are  conviDced  that  less  than  six  railroad 
tracks  will  not  accommodate  the  traffic  to  commence  with.  It  would  be 
a  ^reat  mistake  to  build  the  structure  too  small  ;  therefore  our  bill  pro- 
vides in  good  faith  for  a  bridge  with  a  capacity  of  ten  railroad  tracks. 
Tbe  larger  part  of  the  traffic  will  be  from  passengers,  and  less  from 
freight.  It  will  be  practicable  to  manage  a  very  much  larger  number 
of  passengers  than  could  be  the  case  if  the  freight  traffic  were  predom- 
inating on  the  bridge,  the  same  as  it  is  on  the  connectiug  railroads  be- 
fore they  reach  the  bridge.  The  number  of  railroad  passengers  on  all 
ten  roads  Is,  at  present,  estimated  at  about  twenty  million  per  year. 
The  ten-track  bridge,  it  is  estimated,  will  accommodate  one  hundred 
and  twenty  million  passengers  i)er  year,  or  a  traffic  six  times  as  large, 
but  which  may  not  be  reached  till  the  middle  of  the  next  century. 

In  view  of  the  great  increase  of  the  passenger  traffic  on  the  Brooklyn 
bridge,  the  provisions  for  the  increase  of  traffic  over  the  Hudson  Kiver 
bridge  appear  to  be  justified. 

The  number  of  passengers  on  the  Brooklyn  bridge — 


In  1884  was   8,823,200 

In  1«85  was   18, 000,  UOO 

In  1886  was   24,000,000 

In  1887  was  ,   28,000,000 

In  1888  was   30, 500,  000 

In  1889  was  nearly   34,000,000 


and  it  is  still  growing,  so  that  in  1890  it  will  probably  reach  thirty-six 
million  passengers,  or  four  times  the  number  of  passengers  in  1884. 
But  with  all  this  immense  traffic  the  Brooklyn  bridge  is  yet  very  far 
from  paying  the  interest  on  the  cost  of  its  construction. 

As  is  well  known,  the  Brooklyn  bridge  is  already  too  small  for  the 
traffic  which  it  has  created,  so  to  speak  (for  the  traffic  over  the  ferries 
to  Brooklyn  has  not  fallen  off).  The  traffic  grew  faster  than  the  most 
far  sighted  man  would  have  predicted  seven  years  ago,  when  the  bridge 
was  formall;f  opened.  By  similarity  of  conditions  we  are  justified  in 
assuming  that  the  traffic  over  the  ^North  Kiver  bridge  will  increase, 
though  probably  at  a  smaller  ratio. 

It  must  be  clear,  then,  that  to  build  a  bridge  over  the  North  Eiver 
merely  for  the  existing  traffic,  or  for  a  little  greater  one,  would  be  a 
great  mistake  from  a  public  point  of  view.  I  go  even  further  and  claim, 
in  the  light  of  the  experience  we  now  have,  that  a  bridge  built  only 
large  enough  for  the  nearest  prospective  traffic,  and  capitalized  up  to 
all  it  will  bear,  and  then  compelling  passengers  who  pay  for  full  accom- 
modations to  be  packed  like  sardines  into  the  cars  would  be  a  fraud, 
if  not  a  crime,  against  the  people. 

And  one  of  the  best  methods  to  prevent  it  is  to  prevent  the  paying 
of  profits  on  fictitious  cost  and  capital.  This  our  bill  provides  for.  The 
books  of  the  company  will  be  subject  to  governmental  inspection,  so 
that  the  actual  cash  cost  of  the  undertaking  shall  be  known,  and  the 
prospective  profits  of  the  company  are  thus  limited  to  be  regulated  by 
the  toll  charges  based  on  the  cash  cost. 

In  this  way  it  will  be  possible  to  build,  from  the  start,  a  bridge  with 
a  capacity  for  ten  tracks,  which  will  be  sufficient,  probably,  for  the  next 
fifty  years. 

The  experience  with  our  public  works  bears  me  out  in  saying  that  the 
bridge  can  be  built  cheaper  and  in  half  the  time  by  a  private  company 
than  it  could  be  built  by  the  Government  or  by  the  cities.  With  proper 
business  prudence  it  can  be  done  probably  for  half  the  money.  Unless 
built  economically  and  with  the  most  competent  and  skillful  manage- 


22      BRIDGE  ACROSS  THE  HUDSON  RIVER  AT  NEW  YORK  CITY. 


ment  of  its  affairs,  the  undertaking  could  not  be  made  a  commercial 
success,  as  the  experience  with  the  Brooklyn  bridge  would  indicate. 
The  investors  in  the  North  River  bridge  may  have  to  wait  probably 
many  years  before  they  may  realize  a  reasonable  return  on  the  capital 
invested,  but  the  prospects  of  growing  returns  will  not  be  a  vain  hope 
with  careful  and  competent  management. 

An  increase  of  business  over  our  bridge  under  the  provisions  of  our 
bill  will  have  ultimately  the  effect  of  lower  toll  rates,  and  the  public 
will  therefore  be  sharers  in  the  prosperity  of  the  bridge,  without  being 
sharers  of  the  risks  and  vicissitudes  of  the  work  during  construction 
and  during  the  development  of  its  business. 

Surveys,  general  plans,  and  estimates  have  been  made  for  the  entire 
project,  as  far  as  was  possible,  up  to  the  present  time.  The  patient  work  of 
five  years  and  a  large  amount  of  money  have  been  expended  on  the 
project  before  submitting  it  for  the  authorization  of  Congress.  We 
appear  before  you  with  the  earnest  purpose  of  building  the  bridge. 
Our  pride  and  honor  are  in  it.  We  have  gone  through  the  period 
of  ridicule  and  deprecation.  Our  aims  and  plans  are  not  judged  any 
more  as  visionary  and  impracticable ;  on  the  contrary,  our  work  meets 
now  with  admiration  and  universal  encouragement.  Our  purpose,  to 
leave  the  royal  Hudson  River  at  New  York  City  unobstructed  with 
bridge  piers,  has  met  with  unqualified  approval.  We  have  the  assur- 
ances and  command  the  confidence  of  large  capitalists  for  the  great 
expenditures  of  the  undertaking  and  in  our  judgment  and  ability  to 
carry  out  the  work  for  which  we  ask  your  legislative  aid.  Our  bona  tide 
intentions  are  incorporated  in  the  bill  before  you.  We  respectfully 
ask  of  you  to  put  this  work,  the  greatest  yet  undertaken,  directly  under 
national  control  and  regulation.  It  should  be  a  national  work  in  the 
broadest  and  best  sense  of  the  word — a  monument  representative  of 
this  country's  might,  enterprise,  and  daring.  The  proposed  World's 
Fair  in  1892,  wherever  held,  can  only  bean  ephemeral  affair  compared 
with  the  proposed  bridge,  which  will  last  for  ages,  for  centuries.  We 
ask  for  your  encouragement  and  for  national  recognition,  and  we 
promise  you  a  grand  monumental  work,  an  honor  to  this  nation  and 
its  civilizatioQ. 


Exhibit  J. 

LEGAL  BRIEFS  AND  OPINIONS  BY  JOHN  K.  COWEN  AND  E.  J.  D.  CROSS. 
GUSTAV  LiNDENTHAL,  JAMES  ANDREWS,  JORDAN  L.  MOTT,  and  Others: 

Dear  Sirs:  We  have  carefully  examined  the  bill  authorizing  your- 
self and  others  to  become  a  corporation  and  construct  a  bridge  over  the 
Hudson  River  at  New  York  City,  and  are  prepared  to  answer  the  ques- 
tions which  you  have  presented  to  us  concerning  the  power  of  Congress 
to  create  a  corporation  for  the  construction  of  a  bridge  over  an  inter- 
state stream. 

(1)  Does  Congress  possess  the  power  to  create  such  a  corporation  I 

(2)  Can  it  authorize  a  corporation  created  by  itself  to  construct  a 
bridge  across  the  Hudson  River  between  the  States  of  New  Jersey  and 
New  York  for  the  purpose  of  accommodating  interstate  commerce? 

The  answer  to  the  first  question  is  in  the  affirmative.  It  has  been 
expressly  decided  by  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  in  the 
case  of  McCulloch  vs.  State  of  Maryland  (4  Wheaton,  31G),  that  Con- 
gress can  create  a  corporation  whenevei  such  a  corporation  was  an  ap- 


BRIDGE  ACROSS  THE  HUDSON  RIVER  AT  NEW  YORK  CITY.  23 


propriate  means  of  carrying?  out  any  of  the  i^owers  delegated  to  tlio 
United  States  Government.  This  is  the  leading  case  upon  this  subject, 
and  has  never  been  departed  from  since  the  date  the  opinion  was  de- 
livered, in  1819. 

The  argument  of  Chief- Justice  Marshall  may  be  epitomized  as  fol- 
lows :  Congress  is  invested  with  great  powers,  among  which  are  the 
following:  The  power  to  lay  and  collect  taxes;  to  borrow  money;  to 
regulate  commerce ;  to  declare  and  conduct  a  war ;  and  to  raise  and 
support  armies  and  navies.  Congress  is  necessarily,  therefore,  invested 
with  additional  authority  to  adopt  all  means  which  are  appropriate  or 
plainly  adapted  for  the  execution  of  any  of  the  express  powers  with 
which  the  United  States  Government  is  clothed.  That  as  Congress,  for 
example,  has  the  power  of  raising  revenue  and  applying  it  to  national 
purposes,  this  necessarily  implies  the  power  of  conveying  money  from 
place  to  place  as  the  exigencies  of  the  nation  might  require,  and  of 
employing  the  usual  means  of  conveyance,  and  that  among  those  con- 
venient means  or  fiscal  agencies  a  corporation  was  one,  and,  therefore. 
Congress  had  the  discretion  to  adopt  that  means ;  that  is  to  say,  to 
create  a  corporation  for  the  purpose  of  carrying  out  one  of  the  express 
powers  of  the  Government.  Upon  this  basis  of  reasoning  the  validity 
of  the  act  of  Congress  incorporating  the  old  United  States  Bank  was 
sustained,  and  the  power  of  Congress  in  the  matter  has  not  been  doubted 
since  this  decision. 

We  quote  a  portion  of  the  opinion  of  Chief  Justice  Marshall,  partic- 
ularly ai)propriate  to  this  discussion: 

Alth<Migli  among  the  enumerated  powers  of  government  we  do  not  find  tlie 
word  'M»ank"  or  ''corporation,"  we  find  the  great  powers  to  lay  and  collect  taxes, 
to  ijoiTow  money,  to  regulate  commerce,  to  declare  and  conduct  a  war,  and  to  raise 
and  support  armies  and  navies.  The  sword  and  the  purse,  all  the  external  relations, 
and  no  inconsiderable  portion  of  the  industry  of  the  nation,  are  intrusted  to  its  gov- 
ernment. It  can  never  he  pretended  that  these  vast  powers  draw  after  them  others 
of  iDferior  iii-portance,  merely  because  they  are  inferior.  Such  an  idea  can  never  be 
advanced.  Bui  it  may  with  great  reason  be  contended  that  a  government  intrusted 
with  such  ample  powers,  on  the  due  execution  of  which  the  happiness  and  prosperity 
of  the  nation  so  vitally  depends,  must  also  be  intrusted  with  ample  means  for  their 
execution.  The  power  being  given,  it  is  the  interest  of  the  na  tion  to  facilitate  its 
execution.  It  can  never  be  tlieir  interest,  and  can  not  be  presumed  to  have  been  their 
intention,  to  clog  and  embarrass  its  execution  by  withholding  the  most  appropriate 
means.  T?hroughout  this  vast  Republic,  from  the  St.  Croix  to  the  Gulf  of  Mexico, 
from  the  Atlantic  to  the  Pacific,  revenue  is  to  be  collected  and  expended,  armies  are 
to  be  marched  and  supported. 

The  exigencies  of  the  nation  may  require  that  the  treasure  raised  in  the  North 
should  be  transported  to  the  South  ;  that  raised  in  the  East  conveyed  to  the  West, 
or  that  this  order  should  be  reversed.  Is  that  construction  of  the  Constitution  to  be 
preferred  which  would  render  these  operations  difficult,  hazardous,  and  expensive? 
Can  we  adopt  that  construction  (unless  the  words  imperiously  require  it)  which  would 
impute  to  the  framers  of  that  instrument,  when  granting  these  powers  for  the  public 
good,  the  intention  of  impeding  their  exercise  by  witholding  a  choice  of  means  ?  If, 
indeed,  such  be  the  mandate  of  the  Constitution,  we  have  only  to  obey,  but  that  in- 
strument does  not  profess  to  enumerate  the  means  by  which  the  powers  it  confers 
may  be  executed,  nor  does  it  prohibit  the  creation  of  a  corporation  if  the  existence  of 
such  a  being  ba  essential  to  the  beneficial  exercise  of  those  powers.  It  is,  then,  the 
subject  of  fair  inquiry,  how  far  such  means  may  be  enjoyed. 

It  is  not  denied  that  the  powers  given  to  the  Government  imply  the  ordinary  means 
of  execution.  That,  for  example,  of  raising  revenue  and  applying  it  to  national  pur- 
poses is  admitted  to  imply  the  power  of  conveying  money  from  place  to  place  as  the 
exigencies  of  the  nation  may  require,  and  of  employing  the  usual  means  of  convey- 
ance. But  it  is  denied  that  the  Government  has  its  choice  of  means,  or  that  it  may 
employ  the  most  convenient  means  if  to  employ  them  it  bo  necessary  to  erect  a  cor- 
poration. 

On  what  foundation  does  this  argument  rest  ?  On  this  alone  :  The  power  of  cre- 
ating a  corporation  is  one  appertaining  to  sovereignty,  and  is  not  expressly  conferred 
on  Congress.  This  is  true.  Bat  all  legislative,  powers  appertain  to  sovereignty. 
The  original  power  of  giving  the  law  on  any  subject  whatever  is  a  sovereign  power, 


24     BRIDGE  ACROSS  THE  HUDSON  RIVER  AT  NEW  YORK  CITY. 


and  if  the  Government  of  the  Union  is  restrained  from  creating  a  corporation  as  a 
means  for  performing  its  functions,  on  the  single  reason  that  the  creation  of  a  corpo- 
ration is  an  act  of  sovereignty,  if  the  sufficiency  of  this  reason  be  acknowledged, 
there  wonid  be  some  difficulty  in  sustaining  the  authority  of  Congress  to  pass  other 
laws  for  the  accomplishment  of  the  same  objects. 

The  Government  which  has  the  right  to  do  an  act,  and  has  imposed  on  it  the  duty 
of  performing  an  act,  must,  according  to  the  dictates  of  reason,  be  allowed  to  select 
the  means,  aad  those  who  contend  that  it  may  not  select  any  appropriate  means, 
that  one  particular  mode  of  effecting  the  object  is  excepted,  take  upon  themselves  the 
burden  of  establishing  that  exception. 

The  creation  of  a  corporation,  it  is  said,  appertains  to  sovereignty.  This  is  ad- 
mitted. But  to  what  portion  of  sovereignty  does  it  appertain  ?  Does  it  belong  to 
one  more  than  to  another?  In  America  the  powers  of  sovereignty  are  divided  be- 
tween the  Government  of  the  Union  and  those  of  the  States.  They  are  each  sov- 
ereign with  respect  to  the  objects  committed  to  it,  and  neither  sovereign  with  respect 
to  the  objects  committed  to  the  other.  We  can  not  apprehend  that  Iraiu  of  reasoning 
which  would  maintain  that  the  extent  of  power  granted  by  the  people  is  to  be  af<cer- 
tained,  not  by  the  nature  and  terms  of  the  grant,  but  by  its  date.  Some  State 
constitutions  were  formed  he/ore  some  since  that  of  the  United  States.  We  can  not 
believe  that  their  relation  to  each  other  is  in  any  degree  dependent  upon  this  circum- 
stance. Their  respective  powers  must,  we  think,  be  precisely  the  same  as  if  they  had 
been  formed  at  the  same  time.  Had  they  been  formed  at  the  same  time,  and  had  the 
people  conferred  on  the  General  Government  the  power  contained  in  the  Constitution, 
and  on  the  States  the  whole  residuum  of  power,  would  it  have  been  asserted  that 
the  Government  of  the  Union  was  not  sovereign  with  respect  to  those  objects  which 
were  intrusted  to  it,  in  relation  to  which  its  laws  were  declared  to  be  supreme  ?  If 
this  could  not  have  been  asserted  we  can  not  well  comprehend  the  process  of  reason- 
ing which  maintains  that  a  power  appertaining  to  sovereignty  can  not  be  connected 
with  that  vast  portion  of  it  which  is  granted  to  the  General  Government,  so  far  as  it 
is  calculated  to  subserve  the  legitimate  objects  of  that  Government. 

The  power  of  creating  a  corporation,  though  appertaining  to  sovereignty,  is  not, 
like  the  power  of  making  war  or  levying  taxes  or  regulating  commerce,  a  great  sub- 
stantive and  independent  power,  which  can  not  be  implied  as  incidental  to  other 
powers  or  used  as  a  means  of  executing  them.  It  is  never  the  end  for  which  other 
powers  are  exercised,  but  a  means  by  which  other  objects  are  accomplished.  No  con- 
tributions are  made  to  charity  for  the  sake  of  an  incorporation,  but  a  corporation  is 
created  to  administer  the  charity:  no  seminary  of  learning  is  instituted  in  order  to 
be  incorporated,  but  the  corporate  character  is  conferred  to  subserve  the  purposes  of 
education.  No  city  was  ever  built  with  the  sole  object  of  being  incorporated,  but  is 
is  incorporated  as  affording  the  best  means  of  being  well  governed.  The  power  of 
creating  a  corporation  is  never  used  for  its  own  sake,  but  for  the  purpose  of  effecting 
something  else.  No  sufficient  reason  is  therefore  perceived  why  it  may  not'pass  as  in- 
cidental to  those  powers  which  are  expressly  given,  if  it  be  a  direct  mode  of  executing 
them. 

Then  follows  an  elaborate  analysis  of  the  meaning  of  the  words  "nec- 
essary" and  "  proper"  in  that  clause  of  the  Constitution  which  provides, 
after  enumerating  the  express  powers  given  to  Congress,  that  that  body 
shall  have  the  power  of  making  "  all  laws  which  shall  be  necessary  and 
proper  for  carrying  into  execution  the  foregoing  powers,  and  all  other 
powers  vested  by  this  Constitution  in  the  Government  of  the  United 
States,  or  in  any  department  thereof." 

And  the  court  holds  that  Congress  is  invested  with  the  right  of  choos- 
ing any  means  that  are  appropriate  and  plainly  adapted  to  the  carrying 
out  of  any  powers  which  are  expressly  given. 

This  decision,  therefore,  must  be  taken  as  settling,  finally  and  for  all 
time,  the  right  of  Congress  to  create  a  corporation  to  carry  into  effect 
powers  which  the  Constitution  has  expressly  conferred  upon  that  body. 

Second.  The  so-called  commercial  clause  of  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States  is  found  in  section  8  of  article  1 : 

The  Congress  shall  have  power  *  *  *  to  regulate  commerce  with  foreign  nations, 
and  among  the  several  States,  and  with  the  Indian  tribes. 

Under  this  clause  of  the  Constitution  it  has  been  expressly  decided 
by  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  thatCongi,ess  can  authorize 
the  construction  of  a  bridge  or  a  railroad  for  the  purpose  of  accommo- 


BRIDGE  ACROSS  THE  HUDSON  RIVER  AT  NEW  YORK  CITY.  25 


dating  interstate  commerce.  The  cases  which  are  reported  in  127  U.  S., 
page  1,  under  the  head  of  California  rs.  Pacific  Kailroad  Company,  con- 
tain the  hist  and  authoritative  statement  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the 
United  States  upon  this  subject. 

In  these  cases  the  corporations  authorized  to  construct  the  railroads 
referred  to  in  the  opinion  were,  it  is  true,  State  corporations  invested 
with  franchises  of  constructing  the  railroad  by  the  Federal  Government. 
I   .At  page  39  of  the  report  Judge  Bradley,  in  delivering  the  unanimous 
opinion  of  the  court,  used  the  following  language : 

If,  therefore,  the  Central  Pacific  Railroad  Company  is  not  a  Federal  corporation  its 
most  important  franchise,  including  that  of  constructing  a  railroad  from  the  Pacific 
Ocean  to  Ogden  City,  were  conferred  upon  it  by  Congress.  It  can  not  at  the  present 
day  be  doubted  that  Congress,  under  the  power  to  regulate  commerce  among  the  sev- 
eral States,  as  well  as  to  provide  for  postal  accommodations  and  military  exigencies, 
had  authority  to  pass  these  laws.  The  power  to  construct  or  to  authorize  individuals 
or  corporations  to  construct  national  highways  and  bridges,  from  State  to  State,  is 
essential  to  the  complete  control  and  regulation  of  interstate  commerce.  Without 
authority  in  Congress  to  establish  and  maintain  such  highAvays  and  bridges  it  would 
be  without  authority  to  regulate  one  of  the  most  important  adjuncts  of  commerce. 
This  power,  in  former  times,  was  exerted  to  a  very  limited  extent,  the  Cumberland 
or  National  Road  beiug  the  most  notable  instance.  Its  exercise  was  but  little  called 
for,  as  commerce  was  then  mostly  conducted  by  water,  and  many  of  our  statesmen 
entertained  doubts  as  to  the  existence  of  the  power  to  establish  ways  of  communica- 
tion by  land.  But  since,  in  consequence  of  the  expansion  of  the  country,  the  multi- 
plication of  its  products,  invention  of  railroads  and  locomotion  by  steam,  land  traus- 
portation  has  so  vastly  increased,  a  sounder  construction  of  the  subject  has  prevailed 
and  led  to  the  conclusion  that  Congress  has  plenary  power  over  the  whole  subject. 

Of  course  the  authority  of  Congress  over  the  Territories  of  the  United  States,  and 
its  power  to  grant  francliises  exercisable  therein,  are  and  ever  have  been  undoubted ; 
but  the  wider  power  was  very  freely  exercised,  and  much  to  the  general  satisfaction, 
in  the  creation  of  the  vast  system  of  railroads  connecting  the  East  with  the  Pacific, 
traversing  States  as  well  as  Territories,  and  employing  the  agency  of  State  as  well  as 
Federal  corporations. 

This  decision,  of  course,  finally  settles  the  question  as  to  the  author- 
ity of  Congress,  under  the  commercial  clause  of  the  Constitution,  either 
to  construct  a#bridge  itself  across  an  interstate  stream,  "  or  to  author- 
ize individuals  or  corporations  to  construct"  such  bridges.  Hence,  in 
accordance  with  the  opinion  of  McCuUoch  vs.  Maryland,  it  necessarily 
follows  that  if  Congress  can  build  the  bridge  itself,  it  can  use  any 
means  that  are  appropriate  to  that  end,  and  among  the  means  so  ap- 
propriate a  corporation  is  one,  and  it  therefore  can  create  a  corporation 
for  the  purpose  of  constructing  the  bridge.  Indeed,  several  of  the 
Pacific  railroads  were  constructed  by  Federal  corporations  j  in  other 
words,  by  companies  incorporated  by  the  act  of  Congress  and  not  by 
the  act  of  any  State  legislature.  Among  the  corporations  so  created 
were  the  Union  Pacific  Railroad  Company,  by  the  act  of  1862,  12  Stat- 
utes, 489.  Under  this  act  the  individuals  therein  named  were  created 
and  erected  into  a  body  corporate  and  politic,  in  deed  and  in  law,  by 
the  name,  style,  and  title  of  Hhe  Union  Pacific  Railroad  Company.^" 
By  section  14  of  this  act  the  Union  Pacific  Railroad  Company  was  au- 
thorized and  required  to  construct  a  single  line  of  railroad  and  tele- 
graph from  a  point  on  the  western  boundary  of  the  State  of  Iowa  to  its 
western  terminus  fixed  by  other  provisions  of  the  act;  and  under  this 
section  the  Union  Pacific  Railroad  constructed  the  bridge  across  the 
Missouri  River  between  Omaha  and  Council  Blufi's.  The  discussion  of 
questions  concerning  this  charter  will  be  found  in  Union  Pacific  Rail- 
road Company  vs.  Hall,  91  U.  S.,  page  343.  The  particular  question 
discussed,  to  which  wish  to  call  your  attention,  will  be  found  on  pages 
346,  347. 

The  Texas  and  Pacific  Railway  Company  was  incorporated  by  act  of 


26      BRIDGE  ACROSS  THE  HUDSON  RIVER  AT  NEW  YORK  CITY. 


Congress,  approved  March  3, 1871, 16  Statutes  at  Large,  page  573.  The 
title  of  the  act  is,  ''Au  act  to  incorporate  tlie  Texas  and  Pacific  Rail- 
way Company  and  to  aid  in  tiie  construction  of  its  road,  and  for  other 
purposes."  This  company  was  incorporated  by  act  of  Congress  for  the 
purpose  of  constructing  a  railroad  from  Marshall,  in  the  State  of  Texas, 
to  El  Paso  in  the  same  State  5  thence  through  the  Territories  of  New 
Mexico  and  Arizona,  and  thence  through  the  State  of  California  to  San 
Diego  on  the  Pacific  coast. 

The  two  charters  of  the  Texas  Pacific  and  the  Union  Pacific  "Rail- 
roads are  examined  in  the  Pacific  Railroad  removal  cases,  found  in  115 
U.  S.,  page  2.  These  cases  decide  that  each  of  the  companies  were 
corporations  created  under  the  laws  of  the  United  States,  and,  there- 
fore, were  entitled  to  remove  suits  against  them,  nndertbe  act  of  Con- 
gress relating  to  the  jurisdiction  of  the  United  States  courts.  The 
whole  basis  of  the  opinion  is  that  the  act  of  Congress  created  them 
Federal  corporations,  and  being  Federal  corporations  that  a  suit  against 
them  was  a  suit  arising  under  the  laws  of  the  United  States,"  as  had 
been  held  by  Chief- Justice  Marshall  in  the  case  of  Osborne  vs.  The  Bank 
of  the  United  States,  9  V>lieaton,  738. 

The  following  instances  of  corporations  created  by  act  of  Congress  may 
also  be  referred  to:  The  Northern  Pacific  Railroad  Company,  incorporated 
by  act  of  July  2,  1864, 13  Stat.,  365.  This  corporation  was  organized  to 
construct  a  railroad  from  a  point  either  in  the  State  of  Minnesota  or 
Wisconsin,  to  the  Pacific  coast. 

The  Atlantic  and  Pacific  Railroad  Company  was  incorporated  by  act 
of  Congress,  July  27,  1866,  14  Stat.,  page  292.  This  corporation  was 
created  to  construct  a  railroad  from  Springfield,  Mo.,  to  the  Pacific  coast. 

The  validity  of  all  these  acts  has  been  practically  sustained  by  the 
decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  in  the  case  of  Hall  vs.  The  Union  Pacific 
Railroad  Company,  91  U.  S.;  and  in  the  Pacific  Railroad  cases  in  127 
U.  S.J  and  as  far  as  we  know  the  constitutionality  of  this  legislation  of 
Congress,  creating  corporations  to  build  railroads,  has  never  been  ques- 
tioned. The  decisions  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  and 
the  practical  construction  given  to  the  Constitution  during  a  long  series 
of  years  by  Congress  itself,  demonstrate  two  propositions : 

(1)  That  under  the  power  to  regulate  commerce.  Congress  can  con- 
struct a  bridge  over  an  interstate  stream,  or  can  construct  a  railroad 
for  interstate  commerce. 

(2)  That  Congress,  having  the  power  to  do  this  itself,  can  employ  any 
agency  which  is  appropriate  to  accomplish  the  end  aimed  at;  that  is, 
the  construction  of  the  bridge  or  the  railroad,  and,  therefore.  Congress 
can  organize  a  corporation  for  such  purpose. 

Third.  The  whole  question  of  the  i)ower  of  Congress  to  authorize  the 
construction  of  bridges  across  interstate  streams  was  examined  by 
Justice  Bradley  in  the  case  of  Stockton  vs.  The  Baltimore  and  New  York 
Railroad  Company  and  the  Staten  Island  Rapid  Transit  Railroad  Com- 
l)any,  32  Federal  Reporter,  page  9.  Congress,  by  an  act  approved  June 
16,  1886,  had  authorized  the  Staten  Island  Rapid  Transit  Railroad  Com- 
pany, a  corporation  of  New  York,  to  construct  a  bridge  across  the  Arthur 
K\\\  the  stream  separating  New  Jersey  from  that  part  of  New  York 
known  as  Staten  Island.  The  legislature  of  New  Jersey,  on  April  6, 
1886,  had  enacted  a  law  providing  as  follows: 

That  no  lu  idii^o,  viaduct,  or  fixed  structure  shall  be  created  by  any  person  or  corpora- 
tion, over  or  in  au^'^  part  of  tbe  navigabk^  waters  separating  this  State  from  other 
States,  where  the  tide  ebbs  and  flows,  without  express  permission  of  the  legislature 
of  this  State  given  by  statute  for  thai)  purpose. 


BRIDGE  ACROSS  THE  HUDSON  RIVER  AT  NEW  YORK  CITY.  27 


New  Jersey,  therefore,  contended  that  no  bridge  could  be  builtacross 
the  Arthur  Kill  excei)t  with  her  consent,  and  that  the  act  of  Congress, 
conferring  the  power  of  constructing  such  a  bridge  not  only  without  her 
consent  but  against  her  protest,  was  invalid. 

Justice  Bradley,  and  the  two  circuit  judges  who  agreed  with  him, 
held  that  Congress  could  authorize  a  foreign  corporation  not  created 
by  New  Jersey  to  build  a  bridge  across  the  Arthur  Kill.  He  used  this 
language,  pages  14  and  15  of  the  report : 

At  all  events,  if  Congress,  in  the  execution  of  its  powers,  chooses  to  employ  the  in- 
tervention of  a  particular  corporation,  whether  of  the  State  or  out  of  the  State,  we 
see  no  reason  why  it  should,  not  do  so.  There  is  nothing  in  the  Constitution  to 
prevent  it  from  making  contracts  with  or  conferring  powers  upon  State  corporations 
for  carrying  out  its  own  legitimate  purposes.  What  right  of  the  State  would  be  iu- 
vaded?  The  corporation  thus  employed  or  empowered  iuexecutlDg  the  will  of  Con- 
gress could  do  nothing  which  the  State  could  rightfully  oppose  or  object  to.  It  may 
be  added  that  no  State  corporation  more  suitable  than  the  defendant  could  be  em- 
powered to  build  the  bridge  in  question  in  this  case,  since  one  half  of  the  bridge  is  in 
the  State  of  New  York,  and  the  railroad  of  thedefendant  is  to  connect  with  it  on  the 
New  York  side.  In  our  judgment,  if  Congress  itself  has  the  power  to  construct  a 
bridge  across  a  navigable  stream  for  the  furtherance  of  commerce  among  the  States, 
it  may  authorize  the  same  to  be  done  by  agents,  whether  individuals  or  a  corporation 
a-eated  lij  itself,  or  a  State  corporation  already  existing  and  concerned  in  the  enter- 
prise.   *    *  * 

So  that  we  are  brought  back  to  the  question  of  the  power  of  Congress  to  build  a 
bridge,  and  whether  that  power  is  independent  of  the  consent  and  concurrence  of  the 
State  government,  and  in  our  judgment  this  question  must  be  answered  in  the  affirma- 
tive. The  power  to  regulate  commerce  among  the  several  States  is  given  by  the  Con- 
stitution in  the  most  geuf  ral  and  absolute  terms.  "The  power  to  regulate,"  as  ap- 
plied to  a  Government,  has  a  most  extensive  application.  With  regard  to  commerce 
it  has  been  expressly  held  that  it  is  not  confined  to  commercial  transactions,  but  ex- 
tends to  seamen,  ships,  navigation,  and  the  appliances  and  facilities  of  commerce,  and 
it  must  extend  to  these  or  it  can  not  embrace  the  whole  subject.  Under  this  power 
the  navigation  of  rivers  and  harbors  has  been  opened  and  improved,  and  we  have 
no  doubt  that  canals  and  water-ways  may  be  opened  to  connect  navigable  bays,  har- 
bors, and  rivers  with  each  other  or  with  the  interior  of  the  country ;  nor  have  we  any 
doubt  that  under  the  same  power  the  means  of  commercial  communication  by  land 
as  well  as  by  water  may  be  opened  up  by  Congress,  between  different  States,  when- 
ever it  shall  se^  fit  to  do  so,  either  on  the  failure  of  the  States  to  provide  such  com- 
munication, or  whenever,  in  the  opinion  of  Congress,  increased  facilities  of  commu- 
nication ought  to  exist. 

Hitherto,  it  is  true,  the  means  of  commercial  communication  have  been  supplied 
either  by  nature  in  the  navigable  waters  of  the  couutrj^,  or  by  the  States  in  the  con- 
struction of  roads,  canals,  and  railroads ;  so  that  the  functions  of  Congress  have  not 
been  largely  called  into  exercise  under  this  branch  of  its  jurisdiction  and  power,  ex- 
cept in  the  improvement  of  rivers  and  harbors,  and  the  licensing  of  bridges  across 
navigable  streams.  But  this  is  no  proof  that  its  power  does  not  extend  to  the  whole 
subject  in  all  its  possible  requirements;  indeed,  it  has  been  put  forth  in  several  notable 
instances  which  stand  as  strong  arguments  of  practical  construction  given  to  the 
Constitution  by  the  legislative  department  of  the  Government.  The  Cumberland  or 
National  road  is  one  instance  of  a  grand  thoroughfare  projected  by  Congress,  extend- 
ing from  the  Potomac  to  the  Mississippi ;  after  being  nearly  completed  it  was  sur- 
rendered to  the  several  States  within  which  it  was  situated. 

The  main  stem  of  the  Union  Pacific  commences  at  Council  Blufls,  in  Iowa,  aud 
crosses  the  Missouri  by  a  bridge  at  that  place,  erected  under  the  authority  of  Congress 
alone. 

In  1862  a  bridge  was  authorized  by  Congress  to  be  constructed  across  the  Ohio 
River,  at  Steubenviile,  between  the  States  of  Virginia  and  Ohio,  to  be  completed, 
maintained,  and  operated  by  the  railroad  company  authorized  to  build  it,  and  by 
another  company  named,  anything  in  any  law  or  laws  of  the  above-named  States 
to  the  contrary  notwithstanding." 

Still  it  is  contended  that  although  Congress  may  have  power  to  construct  roads 
and  other  means  of  communication  between  the  States,  yet  this  can  only  be  done  with 
the  concurrence  and  consent  of  the  States  within  which  the  structures  are  made.  If 
this  is  so,  then  the  power  of  regulation  in  Congress  is  not  supreme,  it  depends  on  the 
will  of  the  States.  We  do  not,  concur  in  this  view.  We  think  that  the  power  of 
Congress  is  supreme  over  the  whole  subject,  unimpeded  and  unembarrassed  by  State 


28      BRIDGE  ACROSS  THE  HUDSON  RIVER  AT  NEW  YORK  CITY. 


laws  or  State  liens;  that  in  this  matter  the  country  is  one,  and  the  work  to  be  accom- 
plished is  national,  and  that  State  interests.  State  jealousies,  and  State  prejudices 
are  not  required  to  be  consulted.  In  matters  of  foreign  and  interstate  commerce 
there  are  no  States. 

Judge  Wallace,  of  the  United  States  circuit  court  for  the  district  of 
New  York,  held  the  same  view  in  the  case  of  Decker  vs.  The  Baltimore 
and  New  York  Railroad  Company  and  others,  30  Federal  Reporter, 
page  723. 

Fourth.  We  assume,  of  course,  that  no  one  questions  the  right  of 
Congress  to  exercise  the  power  of  eminent  domain,  or  to  authorize  a 
corporation  to  exercise  that  power  in  any  case  where  it  can  employ  a 
corporation  as  one  of  the  agencies  to  carry  into  execution  the  powers 
vested  in  Congress  by  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States.  This 
point  has  been  definitely  settled  by  the  case  of  Kohl  vs.  United  States, 
91  U.  S.  367. 

The  conclusions,  therefore,  may  be  summed  up  as  follows : 

(1)  That  Congress  has  express  constitutional  power  to  regulate  com- 
merce among  the  several  States,  and  that  by  the  decision  of  the  Supreme 
Court  of  the  United  States  the  possession  of  this  power  enables  the 
United  States  Government  to  either  itself  construct,  or  authorize  others 
to  construct,  bridges  across  interstate  streams. 

(2)  That  Congress,  having  the  express  power  to  authorize  the  con- 
struction of  a  bridge,  can  employ  any  appropriate  means  for  the  execu- 
tion of  that  power,  and  there  can  be  none  more  appropriate  than  the  crea- 
tion of  a  corporation  for  that  purpose.  As  in  the  case  of  the  United 
States  Bank,  it  may  be  said  that  the  creation  of  a  body  corporate  to 
build  such  an  improvement  as  that  you  propose  across  the  North  River, 
is  certainly  a  most  appropriate  means  for  carrying  out  the  express 
power  of  regulating  commerce. 

(3.)  In  this  instance.  Congress  is  the  only  body  that  can  act,  as  New 
Jersey  has  by  statute  prohibited  the  construction  of  the  bridge  across 
the  Hudson  River. 

(4.)  That,  as  Congress  can  create  a  corporation  and  authorize  it  to 
construct  a  bridge,  it  can,  of  course,  vest  the  corporation  with  full  and 
complete  power  of  eminent  domain,  the  exercise  of  which  is  essential 
in  any  corporation  that  would  attempt  such  a  stupendous  work  as  that 
of  bridging  the  North  River. 

We  have  not,  in  this  opinion,  referred  to  the  numerous  decisions  of 
the  United  States  Supreme  Court  upon  the  subject  of  regulating  inter- 
state commerce,  having  thought  it  best  to  confine  ourselves  to  the  late 
opinions  of  that  court  upon  the  power  of  Congress  to  authorize  the 
construction  of  bridges. 

Nor  have  we  thought  it  worth  while  to  refer  to  the  National  Banking 
Act,  under  which  Congress  created  national  banks  in  every  State  of 
the  Union,  because  the  whole  subject  was  fully  discussed  in  the  opinion 
of  Chief- Justice  Marshall,  from  which  we  have  quoted  so  largely. 

We  beg  to  say,  in  conclusion,  that  we  have  examined  the  bill  which 
you  have  submitted  to  Congress,  and  see  nothing  in  it  whatever  which 
is  not  clearly  within  the  power  of  Congress  under  the  commercial  clause 
of  the  United  States  Constitution. 
Yours,  respectfully, 

John  K.  Co  wen. 
E.  J.  D.  Cross. 


BRIDGE  ACKOSS  THE  HUDSON  KIVEU  AT  NEW  YORK  CITY.  29 


Exhibit  K. 

remarks  and  opinion  by  charles  f.  maclean. 

GUSTAY  LiNDENTHAL,  JAMES  ANDREWS,  JORDAN  L.  MOTT,  THOMAS 

F.  Ryan,  and  others. 

Sirs:  The  questions  on  which  my  opinion  is  asked  in  connection 
with  the  bill  now  p'endiug  before  Congress  providing  for  a  bridge  across 
the  North  Eiver,  between  the  States  of  l^ew  York  and  New  Jersey, 
and  for  that  purpose  creating  a  corporation  with  the  right  of  obtaining 
the  necessary  lands  by  process  of  condemnation,  may  be  stated  as : 

(1)  Has  Congress  power  to  authorize  the  construction  of  the  bridge? 

(2)  Have  the  United  States  such  right  of  eminent  domain  that  Con- 
gress can  authorize  the  compulsory  condemnation  of  property  1  and, 

(3)  Can  Congress  create  a  corporation  for  the  purposes  of  the  bridge? 

I. 

The  first  of  these  questions  has  lately  been  passed  upon  respecting 
the  Staten  Island  Bridge,  likewise  between  the  States  of  New  York 
and  New  Jersey. 

In  Stockton  vs.  Baltimore  and  New  York  Eailroad  Company,  32  Fed. 
R.,  9,  Bradley,  J.,  there  says : 

lu  our  judgment,  if  Cougress  itself  has  the  power  to  construct  a  bridge  across 
a  navigable  stream  for  the  furtherance  of  commerce  among  the  States,  it  may  au- 
thorize the  same  to  he  done  by  agents,  whether  individuals,  or  a  corporation  created 
by  itself,  or  a  State  corporation  already  existing  and  concerned  in  the  enterprise. 
*  *  *■  So  that  we  are  brought  back  to  the  question  of  the  power  of  Congress  to 
build  a  bridge,  and  whether  that  power  is  independent  of  the  consent  and  concur- 
rence of  the  State  government;  and,  in  our  judgment,  this  question  must  be  answered 
in  the  affirmative. 

Judge  Br'idle}"  discusses  the  subject  at  considerable  length,  idacing 
the  right  upon  the  constitutional  powers  of  the  Government  to  provide 
for  the  common  defense,  to  establish  post-roads,  and  to  regulate  com- 
merce among  the  several  States,  more  especially  the  latter.    He  adds: 

We  think  the  power  of  Congress  is  supreme  over  the  whole  subject,  unimpeded  and 
unembarrassed  by  State  laws  or  State  lines;  that  in  this  matter  the  country  is  one, 
and  the  work  to  be  accomplished  is  national,  and  that  State  interests.  State  jealousies, 
and  State  prejudices  are  not  required  to  be  consulted.  In  matters  of  foreign  and 
interstate  commerce  there  are  no  States. 

The  whole  of  that  case  is  so  pertinent  to  the  subject  in  hand,  that 
instead  of  extended  extracts,  I  do  better  to  refer  you  to  the  original 
report. 

In  California  vs.  Pacific  Railroad,  127  U.  S.  3,  it  is  held  that  "  Congress 
has  authority,  in  the  exercise  of  its  power,  to  regulate  commerce  among 
the  States  5  to  construct,  or  authorize  individuals  to  construct,  railroads 
across  the  States  and  Territories  of  the  United  States." 

Bradley,  J.,  citing  laws  creating  Pacific  Railroad,  says: 

It  can  not  at  the  present  day  be  doubted  that  Congress,  under  the  power  to  regu- 
late commerce  among  the  several  States,  as  well  as  to  provide  for  postal  acconnnoda- 
tions  and  military  exigencies,  had  authority  to  pass  these  laws.  The  power  to  con- 
struct, or  to  autLiorize  individuals  or  corporations  to  construct,  national  highways 
and  bridgi's  from  State  to  State  is  esst-ntial  to  the  complete  control  and  regulation  of 
interstate  commerce.  Without  authority  in  Congress  to  establish  and  maintain  such 
highways  and  bridges  it  would  be  without  authority  to  regulate  one  of  the  most  im- 
portant adjuncts  of  commerce.  *  *  *  a.  sounder  consideration  of  the  subject  has 
prevailed  and  led  to  the  conclusion  that  Congress  has  plenary  power  over  the  whole 

H.  Rep.  $  45 


30      BRIDGE  ACROSS  THE  HUDSON  RIV^ER  AT  NEW  YORK  CITY. 


subject.  Of  course,  the  authority  of  Congress  over  the  Territories  of  the  United  Statee, 
and  its  power  to  grant  franchises  exercisable  therein,  are,  and  ever  have  been,  un- 
doubted. But  the  wider  power  was  very  freely  exercised,  and  much  to  the  general 
satisfaction,  in  the  creation  of  the  vast  system  of  railroads  connecting  the  East  with 
the  Pacific,  traversing  States  as  well  as  Territories,  and  employing  the  agency  of 
State  as  well  as  Federal  corporations. 

11. 

The  right  of  expropriation  of  private  property  rests  upon  the  princi- 
ple of  sovereignty ;  that  is,  the  right  to  resort  to  the  whole  resources  of 
the  nation  for  the  common  benefit,  and  not  npon  the  final  right  of  prop- 
erty, which  resides  in  the  States  themselves.  The  leading  case  is  Kohl 
vs.  United  States,  91  U.  S.  367,  which  arose  from  proceedings  for  con- 
demnatioQ  of  a  site  for  a  court-house,  etc.,  at  Cincinnati,  under  Laws 
1872,  Stat,  at  Large,  39,  352,  523: 

Strong,  J. : 

It  has  not  been  seriously  contended  during  the  argument  that  the  United  States 
Government  is  without  power  to  appropriate  lands  or  other  property  within  the 
States  for  its  own  uses,  and  t'l  enable  it  to  perform  its  proper  functions.  Such  an 
authority  is  essential  to  its  independent  existence  and  perpetuity.  These  can  not 
be  preserved  if  the  obstinacy  of  a  private  person,  or  if  any  other  authority  can  pre- 
V(>nt  the  acquisition  of  the  means  or  instrument  by  which  alone  governmental  func- 
tions can  be  performed.  The  powers  vested  by  the  Constitution  in  the  General  Gov- 
ernment demand  for  their  exercise  the  acquisition  of  lands  in  all  the  States.  These 
ar<>  neede<l  for  forts,  armories,  and  arsenals;  for  navy-yards  and  light-houses;  for 
custom-houses,  post-offices,  and  court-houses,  and  for  other  public  uses.  The  right 
(of  eminent  domain)  is  the  offspring  of  political  necessity;  it  is  inseparable  from 
sovereignty  unless  denied  to  it  by  its  fundamental  law.  But  it  is  no  more  necessary 
foi"  the  exercise  of  the  powers  of  a  State  Government  than  it  is  for  the  exercise  of 
the  conc»-ded  powers  of  the  Federal  Government.  That  Government  is  as  sovereign 
witliin  its  sphere  as  the  States  are  within  theirs. 

When  the  power  to  establish  post-offices  and  to  create  courts  within  the  States  was 
conferred  upon  the  Federal  Government  included  in  it  was  authority  to  obtain  sites 
for  such  offices  and  for  court-houses,  and  to  obtain  them  by  such  means  as  were  known 
or  appropriate.  The  right  of  eminent  domain  was  one  of  those  means  well  known 
when  the  Constitution  was  adopted  and  employed  to  obtain  lands  for  fiublic  uses. 
Its  existence,  therefore,  in  the  grantor  of  that  jjower  ought  not  to  be  questioned. 

In  the  case  of  Darlington  vs.  United  States,  in  the  supreme  court  of 
Pennsylvania,  reported  in  82  Pennsylvania  State  Report,  page  382;  the 
l)ending  case  being  one  for  the  condemnation  of  property  in  the  city  of 
Pittsburgh,  for  the  erection  of  a  building  to  be  used  for  a  court-honse, 
custom-house,  post-office,  United  States  marshal's  office,  and  other 
Government  offices. 

Mr.  Justice  Paxson,  delivering  the  opinion  of  the  court,  October  23, 
187G,  says,  inter  alia,  as  follows : 

The  right  of  the  United  States  to  take  private  property  for  public  use  is  too  well 
settled  to  be  now  disputed.  Of  the  numerous  cases  upon  this  subject  it  is  sufficient 
to  refer  to  Kohl  vs.  United  States,  which  is  believed  to  be  the  last,  and  will  be  found 
reported  in  the  American  Law  Register  for  September,  1870.  The  opinion  of  the 
Court  was  delivered  by  Mr.  Justice  Strong,  who  said,  "The  right  of  eminent  domain 
is  inherent  in  all  Governments  by  virtue  of  their  soA^ereignty.  For  all  i>urpose8  re- 
quired by  the  Constitution  this  right  exists  in  the  United  States  independently  of 
any  consent  of  the  State  in  which  the  property  lies."  The  right  itself  arises  from 
ut  c<'ssity,  of  which  necessity  the  sovereignty  taking  the  property  must  be  the  judge, 
and  is  qualitied  only  by  the  duty  of  making  compensation  to  the  owner. 

1  he  case  of  United  States  vs.  Jones,  109  U.  S.,  513,  arose  upon  the  act 
of  March  3,  1875,  providing  for  taking  lands,  etc.,  for  a  canal,  paying 
damages  ''which  may  have  been  ascertained  in  the  mode  provided  by  the 
laws  of  the  State''  where  the  land  lay. 

Field,  J.: 

The  power  to  take  private  property  foi  public  uses,  generally  termed  the  right  of 
eminent  domain,  belongs  to  every  independent  Government.  »  *  *  The  provision 
found  in  the  fifth  amendment  to  the  Federal  Constitution  and  in  the  constitution  of 


BRIDGE  ACROSS  THE  HUDSON  RIVER  AT  NEW  YORK  CITY.  31 


the  several  States  for  just  compensation  for  the  property  taken,  is  merely  a  liuiitation 
on  the  use  of  that  power. 

In  Van  Brocklin  vs.  State  of  Tennessee,  117  TJ.  S.,  151,  Gray,  J.,  said  • 

So  the  United  States,  at  the  discretion  of  Congress,  may  acquire  and  hold  real  prop- 
erty in  any  State,  whenever  such  property  is  needed  for  the  use  of  the  Government, 
in  the[execution  of  any  of  its  powers,  whether  for  arsenals,  fortifications,  light-honses 
custom-houses,  court-houses,  barracks,  or  hospitals  or  for  any  other  of  the  many  pub- 
lic purposes  for  which  such  property  is  used  ;  and  when  the  property  can  notl)e  ac- 
quired by  voluntary  arrangement  with  the  owners,  it  may  be  taken  against  their  will 
by  the  United  States,  in  the  exercise  of  its  power  of  eminent  domain,  upon  making 
just  compensation,  with  or  without  a  concurrent  act  of  the  State  in  which  the  land 
is  situated. 

In  Fort  Leavenworth  Eailroad  vs.  Lowe,  114  U.  S.,  525,  Field,  J.,  said: 

But  not  only  by  direct  purchase  have  the  United  States  been  able  to  acquire  lands 
thev  needed  without  the  consent  of  the  States,  but  it  ha  s  been  held  that  they  possess 
the  right  of  eminent  domain  within  the  States,  using  those  terms,  not  as  expressing 
the  ultimate  dominion  or  title  to  property,  but  as  indicating  the  right  to  take  private 
property  tor  public  uses  when  needed  to  execute  the  powers  conferred  by  the  Consti- 
tution ;  and  that  the  General  Government  is  not  dependent  upon  the  caprice  of  indi- 
viduals or  the  will  of  State  legislatures  in  the  acquisition  of  such  lands  as  may  be  re- 
quired for  the  full  and  effective  exercise  of  its  powers.  *  *  The  right  to  acquire 
property  in  this  way  by  condemnation  may  be  exerted  either  through  tribunals  ex- 
pressly designated  by  C  ngress,  or  by  resort  to  Tribunals  of  the  State  in  which  the 
property  is  situated,  with  her  consent  for  that  purpose.  Such  consent  will  always  be 
presumed  in  the  absence  of  express  prohibition. 

This  right  of  the  General  Government  is  fully  recognized  by  the  State 
of  New  York.  The  court  of  appeals  of  that  State,  In  re  United  States, 
96  N.  Y.,  227,  sustains  the  right  and  holds  that  it  may  be  exercised  by 
the  United  States  either  in  the  Federal  courts  or  in  the  State  courts. 

Congress  has  from  time  t-o  time  passed  a  number  of  acts  for  expropri- 
ating lauds.  Among  them  may  be  mentioned  that  of  1879  for  the  im- 
provemeut  of  the  Tennessee  River,  and  that  of  1880  for  reservoirs  in 
Minnesota,  which  adopt  the  State  practice  by  mere  reference  thereto. 


The  power  of  the  United  States  to  create  corporations  to  carry  out 
the  powers  granted  by  the  Constitution  was  settled  by  McCulloh  vs. 
Maryland,  4  Wheat.,  407. 

In  that  case,  which  involved  the  constitutionality  of  the  Bank  of  the 
United  States,  Chief- Justice  Marshall  examines  the  subject  at  consid- 
erable length,  and  sustains  the  power  as  incidental  to  the  powers  spe- 
cifically granted.  The  case  has  always  been  regarded  as  of  the  highest 
authority.    In  it  he  says: 

Throughout  this  vast  Republic,  from  the  St.  Croix  to  the  Gulf  of  Mexico,  from  the 
Atlantic  to  the  Pacific,  revenue  is  to  be  collected  and  expended,  armies  are  to  be 
marched  and  supported.  The  exigencies  of  the  nation  may  require  that  the  treasure 
raised  in  the  North  should  be  transferred  to  the  South  ;  that  raised  in  the  Enst  con- 
veyed to  the  West,  or  that  this  order  should  be  reversed.  Is  that  constriu  tion  of  the 
Constitution  to  be  preferred  which  would  render  these  operations  diiliciilt,  hazard- 
ous, and  expensive?  "  *  *  The  Government  which  has  a  right  to  do  an  act  and 
has  imposed  on  it  the  duty  of  performing  that  act,  must  according  to  the  <lictates  of 
reason  be  allowed  to  select  the  means;  and  those  who  contend  that  it  niiiy  not  se- 
lect any  appropriate  means  that  one  particular  mode  of  etfecting  the  object  is  elfectcd. 
take  upon  themselves  the  burden  of  establishing  that  exception.  *  *  »  Tlio 
power  of  creating  the  corporation,  though  appertaining  to  sovereignty,  is  not,  Iik«^ 
the  power  of  making  war,  or  of  levying  taxes,  or  of  regulating  commerce,  an  inde- 
pendent power  which  can  not  be  implied  as  incidental  to  other  powers,  or  used  as  a 
means  of  executing  them.  It  is  never  the  end  for  which  other  ])owers  are  exercised, 
or  a  means  by  which  other  objects  are  accomplished.  *  »  *  The  power  of  creat- 
ing a  corporation  is  never  used  for  its  own  sake,  but  for  the  purpi>se  of  etl'ccting 
something  else.  No  suQicient  reason  is  therefore  perceived  why  it  may  not  pass  as 
incidental  to  those  powers  which  are  expressly  given,  it  it  be  a  direct  mode  of  exe- 
cuting them. 


32      BRIDGE  ACROSS  THE  HUDSON  RIVER  AT  NEW  YORK  CITY. 


The  case  of  Railroad  Company  i^s.  Peniston,  18  Wall.,  5,  involved 
the  corporate  powers  of  the  Pacific  Railroads. 

Strong,  J.,  referring  to  use  of  roads  for  i^ostal  and  military  purposes 
and  other  provisions  of  charter,  says  : 

Thej^  all  look  to  a  purpose  of  Congress  to  secure  an  agency  competent  and  under 
obligation  to  perform  certain  offices  for  the  General  Government.  NotwithstandiLg 
this,  the  railroad  and  the  telegraph  lines  are  neither  in  whole  nor  in  part  the  prop- 
erty of  the  Government.  Admitting,  then,  as  we  fully  do,  that  the  company  is  an 
agent  of  the  General  Government,  designed  to  be  employed  and  actually  employed, 
in  the  legitimate  service  of  the  Government,  both  military  and  postal,  does  it  follow, 
etc. 

Swayne,  J.,  says  that  the  road  is  a  "  national  instrumentality." 
Bradley,  J.,  after  quoting  Chief- Justice  Marshall,  in  the  McCulloh 
case,  says : 

Now  I  think  it  can  not  he  doubted  at  the  present  day,  whatever  may  have  been 
contended  in  former  times,  that  the  creation  of  national  roada  and  other  means  of 
communication  between  the  States  is  wilhiu  the  power  of  Congress  in  carrying  out 
the  powers  of  regulating  commerce  and  in  providing  for  the  national  defense,  and  for 
military  operations  in  time  of  war.  And  no  one  will  contend  that  if  the  creation  of  a 
corporation  is  a  suitable  agency  and  means  of  carrying  on  the  definite  operations  of  the 
Government,  the  creation  of  a  corporation  is  equally  apposite  as  an  agency  and  means 
of  carrying  out  the  objects  above  mentioned. 

Among  other  instances  of  the  exercise  of  this  power  are  to  be  men- 
tioned the  laws  creating  the  Pacific  Railroad  Companies.  Some  of  these 
acts  adopted  State  corporations  and  extended  their  powers;  but  others 
created  corporations  which  had  not  existed  before.  These  acts  have 
been  sustained  by  the  Supreme  Court. 

See  cases  already  cited,  and  also  Pacific  Railway  Removal  Cases,  115 
U.  S.,  18,  19. 

I  have  forborne  citing  any  of  the  minor  cases.  It  is  to  be  noted  that 
these  decisions,  with  a  single  exception,  are  recent,  and  represent  the 
opinion  of  the  Supreme  Court  at  the  present  day,  and  were  in  most 
cases  pronounced  by  judges  who  are  still  upon  the  bench. 

Under  the  construction  of  the  powers  of  Congress,  given  by  the  Su- 
preme Court  of  the  United  States,  all  the  questions  stated  at  the  outset 
must  be  answered,  in  my  opinion,  in  the  affirmative. 
I  am,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

Charles  F.  MacLean. 


Exhibit  L. 
remarks  by  m.  h.  houseman. 

The  purpose  of  the  bill  before  you  is  to  authorize  the  construction  of 
a  bridge  over  the  Hudson  River  at  New  York  City,  with  proper  ap- 
proaches and  appurtenances,  and  the  formation  of  a  company  with  its 
necessary  power  to  build,  operate,  and  use  the  same. 

The  unusual  magnitude  of  the  work  will  require  a  very  large  amount 
of  money,  and  investors  will  have  to  wait  perhaps  some  ten  or  twelve 
years  belbre  revenue  can  be  derived  from  the  operation  of  the  bridge. 

The  risks  and  unavoidable  delays  by  reason  of  the  peculiar  character 
and  extent  of  this  undertaking  will  undoubtedly  be  much  greater  than 
those  met  with  in  the  construction  of  an  ordinary  bridge. 

One  of  the  most  important  requisites  to  be  complied  with  to  obtain 
the  needed  capital  for  such  a  work  is  that  the  company  should  possess 
clear  legal  rights  to  construct  and  operate  the  bridge,  so  that  the  risks 


BRIDGE  ACROSS  THE  HUDSON  RIVER  AT  NEW  YORK  CITY.  33 


of  the  undertakiug  slioukl  not  be  iucreased  by  an^'  complications  as  to 
its  charter  powers.  Past  experience  and  serious  losses  have  taught  in- 
vestors to  avoid  such  investments,  wheva  the  rights  and  powers  of  the 
company  are  doubtful  and  uncertain,  and  which  may  serve  only  to  incur 
upon  them  years  of  litigation  to  establish  their  validity  and  interpreta- 
tion by  the  courts. 

The  structure  is  to  extend  over  and  across  a  uavigable  river,  which 
is  under  the  jurisdiction  of  Congress,  and  its  termini  will  be  in  two  sep- 
arate States.  The  laws  of  one  of  the  States,  namely,  New  Jersey,  ex- 
pressly prohibit  the  bridging  of  the  Hudson  Kiver  from  or  into  that 
State,  except  by  the  special  consent  of  the  Sta.te,  to  be  expressed  through 
its  legislature,  which  may  or  may  not  be  given,  or  if  so  given  it  may 
be  so  qualified  as  to  virtually  prevetit  the  building  of  that  part  of  the 
structure  so  extending  into  that  State. 

It  may  be  stated  that  bridges  over  navigable  streams  elsewhere  form- 
ing the  boundary  between  two  States  have  been  erected  merely  under 
license  acts  from  Congress,  but  it  will  be  found  that  in  all  such  cases 
the  formation  of  the  company  was  made  feasible  under  the  general  rail- 
road laws  of  the  States.  But  there  is  no  law  adequate  in  either  the 
States  of  New  York  or  Xew  Jersey  under  which  a  bridge  company  can 
be  formed  with  authority  to  build  the  proposed  structure,  and  even  if 
such  a  law  could  be  enacted  by  these  respective  States  the  effect  thereof 
would  be  limited  within  the  State,  and  by  the  State  line  somewhere  in 
the  Hudson  Eiver,  the  exact  location  of  which  is  itself  said  to  be  in  dis- 
pute. The  charter  and  authority  of  a  company  thus  made  up  would 
also  be  subject  to  modification  or  repeal  from  year  to  year  by  either 
State  independently  of  the  other.  Thus,  through  the  influence  of  rival 
interests,  or,  i^erhaxis,  by  reason  of  conflict  between  political  parties,  the 
legal  stability  of  the  company's  affairs  might  be  constantly  endangered. 

We  are  not  without  good  grounds  for  this  apprehension,  and  can 
speak  from  experience  that  investors  could  not  well  be  induced  to  trust 
their  moi^ey  in  an  undertaking  which  might  be  subjected  to  interference 
from  two  independent  and  rival  sovereign  powers. 

The  traffic  over  the  proposed  bridge  will  be  wholly  interstate  j  the 
administration  of  its  affairs  throughout  from  end  to  end  should  be  uni- 
form, and  subject  only  to  one  controlling  and  regulating  authority,  which 
should  be  superior  to  that  of  either  State,  and  can  only  properly  be  lodged 
by  the  Congress  of  the  United  States  in  the  National  Government. 

The  ten  more  railroads  which  may  use  the  proposed  avenue  into  New 
York  City  derive  their  rights,  powers,  and  privileges  from  different 
States,  and  their  common  regulation  and  control  in  the  use  of  the  bridge 
can  best  be  effected  under  the  Government  of  the  United  States. 

It  is  obvious  that  if  a  company  were  formed  by  the  consolidation  of 
State  corporations,  each  subject  to  different  and  incongruous  laws 
within  the  two  separate  and  respective  States,  it  would  be  further 
necessary  to  supplement  this  consolidation  by  a  license  act  from  Con- 
gress, with  authority  to  construct  the  bridge. 

The  life  and  existence  of  a  company  thus  formed  would  depend  upon 
a  patch- work  legislation,  with  uncertain  paternity,  and  would  be  lack- 
ing in  merit  and  stability.  With  such  an  aggregation  there  would 
indeed  be  good  reason  for  apprehension  of  conflict  and  disagreement 
between  the  States,  arising  out  of  the  operation,  regulation,  and  control 
of  the  legal  affairs  of  the  company.  Such  a  company  could  not  with 
confidence  appeal  to  capital  for  the  stupendous  undertaking  here  pro- 
posed. 

After  several  years  of  patient  bibor  in  connection  with  this  project, 
H.  Kep.  928  3 


34      BRIDGE  ACROSS  THE  HUDSON  RIVER  AT  NEW  YORK  CITY. 


and  after  frequent  consultatioiis  with  financial  intercf^ts,  we  deem  it 
but  proper  here  to  say  that  we  have  found  men  with  large  capital,  as 
well  as  representatives  of  financial  institutions,  to  be  unwilling  to 
embark  with  their  money  into  an  enterprise  of  such  magnitude  unless 
full  authority  to  construct  and  operate  the  same  be  obtained  through 
a  national  charter  from  Congress. 

The  bill  here  submitted  for  your  approval  provides,  however,  that 
the  company  in  the  exercise  of  its  necessary  power  to  acquire  property 
by  lawful  appropriation  shall  do  so  under  the  laws  of  the  respective 
States,  and  shall  make  proj)er  compensation  therefor,  and  that  the 
amount  of  such  compensation  is  to  be  ascertained  according  to  the  laws 
and  in  conformity  with  the  practice  of  the  courts  of  the  State  within 
which  the  said  property  is  located. 

The  property  of  the  company  is  likewise  made  subject  to  local  taxa- 
tion for  State,  county,  and  municipal  purposes. 

In  part  return  for  the  grant  by  Congress,  the  proposed  act  provides 
that  the  mails  of  the  United  States  shall  pay  no  toll  over  the  said 
bridge,  also  that  the  United  States  shall  have  the  right  of  way  thereon 
free  of  charge  for  postal  telegraph  purposes. 

The  bridge  thus  becomes  a  post-road  in  a  much  wider  sense  than  any 
heretofore  constructed.  It  becomes  a  post-road  on  which  the  United 
States  Government  has  free  right  of  way.  The  mails  from  and  to  New 
York  City  and  the  greater  part  of  Xew  England  will  pass  over  this 
mail  route,  which,  without  question,  will  become  the  most  important  in 
the  world.  The  bridge  will  be  for  the  greater  safety  and  convenience 
of  the  United  States  mail  as  much  as  for  anything  else.  This  of  itself 
should  cause  the  structure  to  be  wholly  under  Government  control.  In 
addition  it  will  form  a  military  road,  the  only  one  by  which,  without 
delay,  rapid  communication  will  be  possible  between  INew  Englu^nd, 
I^Tew  York  City,  and  the  country  along  the  Atlantic  coast,  and  this  is  a 
further  reason  for  Governmental  control  and  regulation  of  the  structure. 

That  the  Congress  of  the  United  States  has  full  constitutional  power 
for  the  creation  of  the  proposed  corporation,  and  for  authorizing  the 
work  as  ijroposed,  has  been  well  shown  by  my  colleagues  in  the  legal 
briefs  submitted  to  you. 


Exhibit  M. 

remarks  of  james  andrews  to  committee. 

About  a  year  and  a  half  ago  I  was  in  England  and  took  occasion  to 
go  up  to  the  site  of  the  Forth  bridge,  about  10  miles  out  of  Edinburgh. 
The  engineer  of  the  bridge,  Mr.  (now  Sir  Benjamin)  Baker,  was  with 
me.  In  going  over  the  work,  huge  and  overwhelming  in  appearance, 
he  remarked  to  me:  "You  have  some  big  things  in  the  United  States, 
but  you  have  nothing  as  big  as  this  bridge."  I  happened  to  have  a 
lithograph  of  our  proposed  Hudson  River  bridge  in  my  pocket,  and 
handing  it  to  him,  I  jokingly  remarked,  "  We  are  just  getting  ready  for 
a  bigger  bridge  than  yours,  and  when  we  are  done  with  it,  w^e  may  warm 
up  to  something  that  will  really  astonish  you."  The  project,  now  be- 
fore your  committee,  was  enough  to  astonish  the  engineer  of  the  Forth 
bridge.  It  is  a  clean  jump  from  spans  of  1,700  feet  in  his  bridge 
to  one  of  nearly  3,000  feet  in  our  proposed  bridge,  flanked  by  spans  of 
1,500  feet  each.  The  Forth  bridge  has  only  two  tracks,  ours  will  liave 
ultimately  ten  tracks.    The  Forth  bridge  cost  $14,000,000,  is  used  only 


BRIDGE  ACROSS  THE  HUDSON  RIVER  AT  NEW  YORK  CITY.  35 


hy  three  railroads,  extending'  about  200  miles  north  into  Scotland.  It 
Mas  built  to  save  about  25  miles  of  distance.  Our  bridge  with  ap- 
pi'onclies  and  terminals  may  cost  $40,000,000,  but  if  it  should  cost  more, 
it  will  yet  be  cheaj)  as  compared  with  the  Forth  bridge.  If  the  cost  of 
our  bridge  were  equally  divided  among  the  ten  railroads  that  will  cross 
it,  it  would  be  about  $4,000,000  per  railroad.  This  is  not  enormous 
when  you  know  that  the  Pennsylvania  Eailroad  Company  has  sp?nt 
about'$5,000,000  on  its  Philadelphia  station,  and  upwards  of  $7,000,000 
to  get  through  Baltimore,  and  like  sums  in  other  large  cities.  l<]very 
railioad  company  is  obliged  to  contiuuall}"  expend  large  sums  of  money 
for  improvements  and  terminals,  as  the  i)opulation  of  the  country  in- 
creases. Though  the  interest  and  returns  on  the  capital  so  invested 
are  sometimes  slow  and  inadequate,  yet  these  are  risks  connected  with 
ail  such  work.    The  country  at  large  always  profits  from  them. 

I  have  been  associated  with  Ca])tain  Eads  in  all  his  large  engineer- 
ing works,  and  if  he  were  alive  he  would  undoubtedly  have  been  con- 
nected with  this  work  before  you.  It  ai)peals  to  the  admiration  of  all 
enterprising  men,  to  men  who  love  grand  subjects  and  can  deal  in  grand 
aftairs.  If  you  will  consider  for  a  moment  the  dimensions  of  this  work, 
it  will  show  you  the  boldness  and  admirable  conception  of  it.  As  a 
man  of  practical  affairs,  and  with  my  large  and  long  experience  of  en- 
gineering subjects,  I  am  glad  to  say  that  the  project  has  beeu  prepared 
with  a  thorough  practical  and  theoretical  knowledge  of  the  problems  to 
be  met  with.  I  have  every  confidence  in  Mr.  Lindenthal's  ability  to 
build  and  direct  this  work,  and  I  have  associated  myself  with  him, 
together  with  his  other  friends,  to  aid  him  with  all  my  power  to  carry 
out  this  undertaking.  Money  can  not  be  obtained  uow  a  days  for  mere 
si)eculative  schemes.  A  project  must  be  fully  worked  out  and  stand 
the  test  of  criticisms  from  exi)erts  of  technical,  legal,  and  financial 
issues  and  subjects.  I  know  of  no  other  large  project  which  was  half 
so  well  i)repared  as  this  one  is  before  legislation  was  obtained  for  it. 

This  bridge  should  not  be  a  mere  utility  structure,  with  perhaps  some 
limber  trusses  hung  up  to  cables  from  skeleton  towers,  over  which 
trains  would  be  obliged  to  creep;  it  should  be  just  what  the  plans  be- 
fore you  show  it  to  be,  a  grand  monumental  work,  correct  in  its  archi- 
tectural proj)ortious,  inspiring  in  its  magnificent  dimensions;  it  should 
be  so  strong  that  the  heaviest  express  trains  can  run  over  it  on  all  ten 
tracks  at  the  same  time  at  full  speed ;  there  should  be  no  slacking  up 
of  trains ;  it  should  be  built  to  endure  for  centuries,  and  of  such  archi- 
tectural harmony  that  it  will  remain  a  model  of  what  such  a  bridge 
should  be  for  all  time  to  come,  as  the  Cathedral  of  Cologne  is  a  model, 
and  will  remain  one  to  the  remotest  times>  of  the  inspiring  and  noble 
architecture  which  it  represents. 

This  work  is  more  than  a  mere  bridge  for  running  trains  over;  it  is 
to  represent  the  highest  development  of  the  art  of  bridge  building  of 
our  time;  it  is  to  represent,  our  enterprise,  our  civilization,  our  wealth  ; 
it  will  forever  exact  admiration  and  respect  for  this  country  from  all 
the  rest  of  the  world. 


36      BRIDGE  ACROkSS  THE  HUDSON  RIVER  AT  NEW  YORK  CITY. 


Exhibit  ^f. 

REMARKS  BY  SAMUEL  REA,  ENGINEER. 

I  feel  honored  in  having  the  privilege  of  making  some  suggestions  to 
the  committee  on  the  subject  of  the  North  liiver  bridge,  and  in  which 
I  am  associated  with  Mr.  Lindenthal.  When  he  first  showed  me  his 
plans  in  the  summer  of  1885,  1  was  somewhat  doubtful  as  to  the  feasi- 
bility of  such  a  large  bridge  from  a  business  point  of  view.  The  plans 
provided  then  for  only  four  railroad  tracks,  but  this,  of  itself,  w^as  such 
a  daring  innovation  for  a  long  span  that  it  seemed  as  if  it  could  not  be 
realized  for  many  years  to  come.  Five  years  have  elapsed,  and  the 
plans  are  now  arranged  for  ten  tracks.  1  may  say  that  I  have  been 
tirging  this  increase  of  tracks  on  Mr.  Lindenthal,  in  our  discussion  of 
the  plans,  since  my  return  from  England  three  years  ago.  I  went  there 
to  study,  among  other  things,  the  railway  terminal  facilities  of  London 
and  of  other  English  and  continental  cities.  I  hoped  to  be  able  to  aid 
Mr.  Lindenthal,  who  advised  me  to  pay  particular  attention  to  this 
question  of  terminals  abroad.  I  have  recorded  my  views  on  the  subject 
in  a  book,  "The  Railways  Terminating  in  London,"  and  I  may  say  that 
the  statistics  collected  in  the  same  have  been  instructive  to  many  of  our 
railroad  managers. 

Tliis  country  has  only  made  a  beginning  in  the  construction  of  large 
terminal  railroad  stations.  We  have  none  that  will  compare  in  size,  in 
comfort,  and  in  convenience  with  the  largest  railroad  stations  abroad. 
We  have  no  adequate  conception  yet  in  this  country  of  the  possibilities 
of  the  suburban  traffic,  and  have  not  given  the  same  attention  to  its 
development  as  it  has  received  in  foreign  countries.  Thus,  the  South 
Eastern  Railway  in  England  is  not  a  large  railway  in  point  of  mileage, 
having  in  all  only  369  miles  of  double  track,  yet  it  owns  two  of  the 
largest  passenger  terminal  stations  in  London,  Charing  Cross  and 
Cannon  street.  The  road  expended  $15,000,000  through  the  city,  or  at 
the  rate  of  $1,750,000  per  mile  of  track;  whereas  the  cost  of  our  pro- 
);osed  North  River  bridge  will  hardly  exceed  $1,000,000  per  mile  of  track, 
including  bridge,  terminal  station,  and  right  of  way.  The  bridges  over 
the  Thames  approaching  Cannon  street  and  Charing  Cross  stations 
have  recently  had  their  capacity  doubled.  The  other  London  stations 
show  similar  great  cost,  and  costly  additions  are  constantly  being  made 
to  accommodate  the  growing  traffic.  Liverpool  street  station,  terminus 
of  the  Great  Eastern  Railway,  is  now  being  enlarged,  and  when  com- 
pleted will  have  six  main  tracks  into  it,  and  all  under  ground. 

From  my  experience  and  study  I  feel  justified  in  expressing  the  opin- 
ion that  the  proposed  North  River  bridge  should  not  be  for  less  than 
ten  railroad  tracks,  although  six  may  be  enough  to  commence  with. 
The  ten  tracks  may  be  needed  within  three  years  after  the  structure 
would  be  opened  for  traffic.  At  the  rate  of  one  train  every  three  min- 
utes on  each  track,  in  and  out,  the  number  of  trains  would  only  be  one 
hundred,  in  or  out,  per  hour,  or  at  the  rate  of  about  twenty  thousand 
passengers,  in  or  out,  per  hour  for  ordinary  occasions.  This  is  not  an 
extravagant  estimate  for  the  morning  and  evening  hours,  and  yet  it 
shows  tlie  necessity  of  providing  for  ten  tracks  if  all  the  railroads  are 
to  be  benefited  by  the  proposed  bridge.  It  is  quite  likely  that  the  bridge 
will  lead  to  the  building  of  numerous  suburban  lines  from  the  near  set- 
tlements in  New  Jersej^ 

A  bridge  at  New  York  City  is  such  a  great  necessity  that  it  would 
have  been  built  long  ago  if  the  United  States  Government  had  not  jeal- 
ously watched  over  the  sacredness  ot  the  Hudson  River  as  a  part  of  the 


BRIDGE  ACROSS  THE  HUDSON  RIVER  AT  NEW  YORK  CITY.  37 


harbor  of  Kew  York  and  prevented  its  desecration  with  bridge  piers. 
Submarine  tunnels  seemed  to  be  the  only  solution,  but  they  are  not  in 
favor  either  with  the  railroads  or  with  railroad  passengers.  They  are 
expensive  to  maintain,  and  disagreeable  to  the  passengers  who  would 
probably  prefer  crossing  on  the  ferries  to  trusting  themselves  on  slow 
trains  running  through  damp  and  chilly  submarine  tunnels. 

Bridges  with  one  or  more  piers  have  been  proposed,  but  such  schemes 
have  met  with  popular  disapproval  and  opposition  from  the  navigation 
interests.  Not  until  Mr.  Lindenthal  presented  his  plans  for  a  single- 
span  bridge  was  there  a  likelihood  of  obtaining  governmental  authority 
for  building  a  bridge  at  all.  But  first  of  all,  it  was  necessary  to  show 
that  a  single-span  railroad  bridge  of  nearly  3,000  feet  was  feasible. 
This  Mr.  Lindenthal  has  done.  His  professional  practice,  his  experience, 
his  attainments  fitted  him  for  it.  No  engineer  doubted  the  feasibility 
of  a  long-span  suspended  bridge,  but  the  question  was,  could  it  be  made 
serviceable  for  the  requirements  of  modern  railroads,  for  the  heavy  con- 
centrated loads  of  huge  locomotives  and  cars  at  high  speed  on  multiple 
tracks  1  Unless  the  bridge  were  designed  to  fully  satisfy  these  severe 
conditions  it  would  be  useless  to  the  railroads,  and  the  money  for  it 
could  not  be  obtained.  Many  were  the  rebuff's  experienced  by  Mr. 
Lindenthal  and  his  friends  ;  many  were  the  sneers  at  the  so-called  vis- 
ionary idea  of  bridging  the  broad  and  deep  North  River  without  a  pier. 
But  now  the  project  is  on  a  sound  and  firm  basis,  has  the  endorsement 
of  practical  and  experienced  men  of  af^iirs,  and  of  great  capitalists, 
and  is  merely  waiting  the  authority  from  Congress  to  be  built  as  speedily 
as  the  gigantic  nature  of  the  work  will  permit. 


Exhibit  O. 

remarks  by  alex.  d.  anderson,  on  the  public  necessity  and 
f  importance  of  the  bridge. 

Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen  of  the  committee :  After  the  able  speeches 
by  Representatives  Bayne,  McAdoo,  Cummings,  Belden,  and  other 
gentlemen,  on  the  public  importance  of  the  proposed  bridge,  there  is 
very  little  left  for  me  to  say  on  the  subject.  I  will,  however,  invite 
your  attention  to  a  few  facts  which  may  be  of  interest. 

The  project  is  of  national  importance,  for  it  is  a  grand  interstate 
trunk  line,  which  will  supplement  and  i^rolong  to  New  York  City,  near 
its  hotel  center,  the  ten  great  railway  systems  which,  with  their  various 
tributary  lines,  first  intersect  the  surrounding  States,  the  South,  the 
West,  and  great  interior,  and  then  converge  at  Jersey  City  with  the 
Hudson  River  as  a  heretofore  insuperable  barrier  in  their  pathway, 
unable  to  enter  the  great  metropolis. 

It  is  in  national  importance  on  a  level  with  the  Union  and  Central 
Pacific  Railways,  the  Nicaragua  Ship  Canal,  the  improvement  of  the 
Mississippi  River,  the  improvement  of  New  York  Harbor,  and  other 
great  public  works. 

It  is,  indeed,  a  remarkable  fact,  and  I  may  add  a  discredit  to  Ameri- 
can enterprise,  that  passengers  who  can  come  in  comfort  and  luxury  all 
the  way  across  the  continent  from  San  Francisco,  from  New  Orleans, 
and  the  Gulf  ports,  and  even  from  the  City  of  Mexico,  without  change 
of  cars  to  Jersey  City,  have  there,  within  sight  of  the  greatest  Ameri- 
can city,  to  halt  and  disembark  and  submit  to  the  annoyances  and 
dangers  of  fog,  ice,  and  collisions,  in  crossing  the  Hudson  by  ferry. 
How  great  these  annoyances  and  dangers  are  can  best  be  appreciated 


38      BRIDGE  ACROSS  THE  HUDSON  RIVER  AT  NEW  YORK  CITY. 


by  referring' to  the  files  of  the  New  York  daily  papers  during  the  j^ast 
two  years.  I  find  in  the  New  York  Herakl  of  Dreember  8,  1888,  a 
graphic  description  of  the  dangers  passengers  from  Philadelphia,  Wash- 
ington, and  the  South,  on  their  way  to  New^  England,  were  subjected  to 
in  the  middle  of  the  night  in  being  ferried  from  Jersey  City  around  lower 
New  York  and  then  up  the  East  liiver.    I  will  quote  briefly  as  follows : 

Upward  of  fifty  lives  were  in  jeopardy  in  the  annexed  district  shortly  before  mid- 
night last  night,  and  in  fact  they  only  escaped  by  the  barest  miracle  from  a  most  dire- 
ful fate. 

The  steara-boat  Maryland,  the  transfer  boat  of  the  New  York,  New  Haven  and 
Hartford  Railroad,  caught  fire  at  ten  minutes  past  11  o'clock,  just  after  she  had 
made  fast  to  her  slip  at  the  railroad  wharf  at  Port  Morris,  in  the  Harlem  River.  On 
board  of  the  boat  was  the  Washington  express,  which  is  transferred  every  night  from 
the  Pennsylvania  Railroad  yards  at  Jersey  City  by  the  Maryland  to  the  New  Haven 
road,  whence  it  proceeds  to  Boston. 

Tlie  train  was  made  up  of  two  sleepers,  one  of  them  named  the  Magenta,  a  passen- 
ger coach,  and  a  baggage  car.  In  the  two  sleepers,  the  porters  say,  there  were  about 
fifty  passengers,  both  men  and  women,  all  of  whom  were  sleeping  entirely  unconscious 
of  Ihe  danger  that  was  soon  to  encompass  them.    *    *  * 

The  scene  that  ensued  was  a  most  thrilling  one.  Already  the  roofs  of  both  cars 
were  on  fire.  The  men  and  women  in  the  berths,  realizing  that  they  had  no  time  to 
spnre,  were  tumbled  out,  and,  without  waiting  to  dress  or  even  pick  up  hastily  any 
of  their  garments  or  valuables,  fled  pell-mell  for  the  platforms.  They  jostled  and 
fought  in  the  narrow  aisles  in  their  frenzy. 

Last  December,  during  the  terrible  fog  which  overspread  New  York 
City  and  Harbor,  the  traveling  public  were  again  subjected  to  a  thrill- 
ing experience  in  crossing  from  Brooklyn  to  Jersey  City  on  the  Annex 
boat  No.  1,  of  the  Pennsylvania  line.  The  New  York  World  of  Decem- 
ber 21,  1889,  thus  describes  the  adventures  of  this  transport: 

Annex  boat  No.  1,  of  the  Pennsylvania  Railroad  line  had  an  eventful  experience 
while  trying  to  make  a  trip  from  Brooklyn  to  Jersey  City.  She  left  her  pier  on  the 
]5i(»ol<lyn  side  about  4  o'clock  with  one  hundred  and  fifty  passengers.  Ab:yut  an 
hour  after  she  had  left  her  slip  she  mot  a  canal-boat  and  there  was  a  collision.  The 
shock  frightened  the  passengers  and  there  was  a  wild  rush  for  life-preservers.  Every 
one  who  could  do  so  wrapped  himself  in  one  of  the  cork  bags.  The  collision  did  not 
have  a  serious  eftect  on  the  trim  little  Annex,  and  she  continued  her  wandering  about 
the  East  River,  while  the  passengers,  attired  in  life-preservers,  were  discussing  the 
question  of  another  collision.  The  second  collision  came,  and  again  the  passengers 
were  thrown  into  a  state  of  fear.  The  force  of  the  second  collision  drove  the  Annex 
boat  against  a  pier,  and  the  deck  hands  thon>^ht  it  best  for  the  safety  of  the  passen- 
gers to  tie  her  up  and  keep  her  there  until  the  fog  raised.  The  pier  was  at  the  foot 
of  Jackson  street,  on  the  East  River.  The  frightened  passengers  left  the  boat  and 
huddled  together  on  the  pier. 

It  was  the  intention  of  the  captain  of  the  Annex  to  lay  up  at  Jackson  street  pier, 
but  another  vessel  wandered  along  in  the  diiection  of  the  pier  and  crashed  into  the 
Annex.  The  force  was  sufficient  to  break  the  ropes  which  had  secured  the  Annex  to 
the  pier  and  again  she  was  adrift.  She  was  completely  at  sea,  and  a  tug-boat  at- 
tempted to  tow  her  around  the  Battery.  Again  she  came  into  collision  with  another 
vessel  and  the  tug-boat  was  compelled  to  draw  off.  The  Annex  managed  to  guide 
her  way  around  the  Battery,  but  while  she  was  heading  for  the  Jersey  shore  she  had 
the  misfortune  to  meet  another  vessel  in  the  North  River,  and  she  received  another 
bump. 

The  little  Annex  kept  up  her  pluck,  however,  and,  despite  her  adventures,  paddled 
into  her  Jersey  City  slip  at  fifteen  minutes  to  9  o'clock,  four  hours  and  forty-five 
minutes  after  she  had  started  from  Brooklyn. 

Only  a  few  weeks  later  another  fog  over  the  North  Eiver  jeopardized 
the  lives  of  passengers  seeking  to  cross  by  ferry.  1  quote  as  follows 
from  the  New  York  Tribune  of  February  27,  W30': 

In  the  closing  hour  of  the  fog  of  yesterday  morning  two  ferry-boats  in  the  North 
River  narrowly  escaped  a  disastrous  collision.  The  Hoboken  Ferry  Company's  boat 
Montdair  runs  between  Barclay  street  and  Hoboken,  and  the  Pavonia  Ferry  Com- 
pany's boat  Erie  travels  between  Chambers  street  and  Jersey  City.  At  7.30  a.  m.  the 
MoHtclair,  carrying  only  fifty  people,  was  going  to  Hoboken,  while  the  JCrie,  crowded 
with  passengers,  was  on  her  trii)  to  New  York.  At  this  time  the  fog  was  so  dense 
that  it  was  impossible  to  discern  objects  at  a  distance  of  more  than  30  yards.  The 


BRIDGE  ACROSS  THE  HUDSON  RIVER  AT  NEW  YORK  CITY.  39 


Monichiir  bad  nearly  reached  midstream  when  Captain  St.  John  saw  the  head  of  a 
large  craft  start  up  with  jjjhost-like  suddenness  on  the  .l/o/i fc7air's  port  side.  The 
frightened  passengers  on  the  Montclair  had  barel>>  time  to  scvaiuble  out  of  tlie  cabins 
when  the  ii'rie  craslied  into  the  Alontclair^s  paddle-wheel,  sniasliing  the  box  and  break- 
ing away  a  part  of  the  railing.  In  the  meantime  the  wildest  panic  prevailed  among 
the  Erit's  four  hundred  passengers.  Women  screamed  and  fainted,  while  men  rusln  d 
wildly  from  end  to  end  of  the  boat,  as  if  temporarily  deprived  of  reason.  Some  even 
made  attempts  to  jump  into  the  river,  but  they  were  held  back  by  those  around  them. 

These  are  bat  illustrations  of  the  frequent  discomforts  and  dangers 
I)assen<iers  are  subjected  to  at  a  place  which,  above  all  others  in  the 
United  States,  should  be  supplied  with  the  most  imi)roved  methods  of 
railway  transportation.  1  say  ''abov^e  all  others"  for  about  twenty 
million  passengers  are  annnwlly  compelled  to  cross  the  Hudson  at  this 
point,  and  the  number  is  raj)idly  increasing. 

Tlie  whole  country  from  East  to  West  and  North  to  South  is,  so  to 
speak,  bridged  over  with  railways  to  the  extent  of  over  100,(100  miles, 
except  one  single  span  across  the  Hudson  only  half  a  mile  in  length. 
This  serious  detect  leaves  a  dangerous  gaj)  between  the  National  Capital 
and  the  great  commercial  metropolis,  interfering  at  times  with  the 
business  of  the  Government  by  delaying  mails,  and  is  liable  also  to 
check  the  speedy  movement  of  troo[)S  in  case  of  a  riot  or  other  great 
public  emergencies.  It  leaves  a  river  barrier  to  be  surmounted  by  the 
vast  throng  of  passengers  who  daily  travel  back  and  forth  between 
Baltimore,  Philadelphia,  New  York,  and  Boston,  and  enlarging  the 
circle  between  the  various  sections  of  the  whole  country. 

The  bridge  is,  then,  an  interstate  project  in  its  broadest  and  fullest 
meaning,  a  national  work  in  all  except  its  financial  features,  which 
burden  ])rivate  capital  is  ready  to  assume.  It  is,  in  brief,  in  its  public 
importance  the  bridge  of  the  nation,  and  of  all  the  States — a  project 
which  it  will  be  admitted  ought  to  be  under  the  supervision  of  the  Gen- 
eral Government.  The  reasoning  which  John  0.  Calhoun  applied,  in 
1845,  in  a  speech  at  Memphis,  to  the  improvement  of  the  Mississippi 
liiver,  is  equally  applicable  to  the  subject  under  consideration.  He 
said :  * 

The  invention  of  Fulton  has,  in  reality,  for  all  practical  purposes,  converted  the 
Mississipid  with  all  its  tributaries  into  an  inland  sea.  R('<;ar<ling  it  as  such  lam 
prepared  to  place  it  on  the  same  footing  with  the  Gulf  and  Atlantic  coasts,  the  Chesa- 
peake and  Delaware  Bays,  and  the  lakes  in  refeieuce  to  the  superintendence  of  the 
General  Government  over  its  navigation.  It  is  manifest  that  it  is  far  beyond  the 
power  of  indi\idaal  or  separate  States  to  supervise  it. 

The  proposed  bridge,  with  its  ten  or  more  tributary  railroads  is,  in 
this  respect,  not  unlike  the  great  river  system,  and  its  supervision  and 
control  is  equally  beyond  the  power  of  individual  States. 


Exhibit  P. 

EXTRACTS  FROM  PRESS  COMMENTS. 

The  following  extracts  from  lengthy  reviews  and  editorials  on  the 
bridge  described  above,  and  forming  the  subject  of  bill  H.  R.  388G, 
will  be  of  general  interest: 

,  [Xew  York  Sun,  January  18,  1888.] 

Of  all  the  plans  to  throw  an  iron  highway  across  the  Hudson  River  the  most  stu- 
pendous which  has  yet  been  suggested  is  by  the  men  who  have  selected  tor  rheir 
points  of  anchorage  Hoboken  and  a  spot  on  the  New  York  side  near  Fourteenth  Street. 
It  is  the  greatest  in  engineering  features,  because  it  involves  the  solution  of  problems 
which  n*o  engineer  has  so  far  attempte<l  to  solve,  and  it  is  greatest  in  tinaneial  aspects, 
because  the  total  cost  is  placed  between  !<37,000,U(iO  anfr:^r)(),OUO,0()0.  How  vast  tliis 
is  one  may  appreciate  upon  reflecting  that  the  great  lirooklyu  bridge  cost  only  $15,- 


40      BRIDGE  ACROSS  THE  HUDSON  RIVER  AT  NEW  YORK  CITY. 


000,000,  including  the  purchase  of  property.  *  *  *  Should  the  plan  ever  be 
carried  into  effect  the  bridge  would  be  the  bridge  of  the  world,  for  it  would  be  longer, 
higher,  and  larger  for  traffic  than  any  other  bridge  now  existing  or  proposed. 

This  scheme  was  first  formally  presented  to  the  public  at  a  meetiug  of  the  American 
Society  of  Civil  Engineers  by  Gustav  Lindenthal,  an  engineer  who  has  studied  Ibe 
North  River  bridge  problem  for  along  time,  and  has  made  surveys,  soundings,  and 
complete  examinations.  The  Engineering  News,  commenting  upon  the  paper  which 
Mr.  Lindenthal  read  before  the  society,  thus  refers  to  the  thought  of  impossibility 
which  is  apt  to  rise  in  the  mind  of  almost  any  layman : 

"The  grandeur  of  the  project  is  almost  appalling,  creating  at  first  sight  a  natural 
feeling  that  the  chance  for  its  construction  must  be  small.  But  this  is  an  age  of  great 
enterprises  and  of  superabundant  capital  for  anything  which  it  can  be  shown  will 
pay,  either  directly  or  indirectly.  We  think  that  there  is  abundant  reason  to  believe 
that  such  a  bridge  as  that  proposed  would  pay  even  now,  while  the  engineering  diffi- 
culties are  certainly  less  formidable  for  the  resources  of  to-day  than  were  those  which 
confronted,  the  St.  Louis,  East  River,  and  many  other  bridges  when  their  construc- 
tion was  begun." 

As  to  the  probability  of  this  bridge  being  a  safe  investment  for  superabundant 
capital,  the  figures  presented  by  Mr.  Lindenthal  afford  an  emphatic  affirmative 
answer. 

[New  York  Times,  December  25,  1888.] 

.  Two  considerations  make  it  more  likely  than  ever  that  we  shall  have  a  bridge  across 
the  Hudfvou  into  this  city  before  the  century  closes.  One  is  the  reduced  cost  of  such 
undertakings  resulting  from  inventions  and  improved  methods  of  manufacture; 
the  other  is  the  economy  it  presents  over  a  number  of  crossings  above  or  below 
water.  *  *  *  An  engineer  of  Pittsburgh,  who  makes  bridges  a  specialty,  has  suc- 
ceeded in  gaining  the  ear  of  capitalists,  and  his  calculations  meet  with  respectful 
consideration  fiom  those  who  ought  to  know.    *    *  * 

The  picture  of  this  greatest  of  all  wouders  of  bridge-making  offers  much  the  same 
beauty  of  curve  in  the  main  span  as  the  East  River  bridge,  and  more  grace  of  outline 
in  the  towers. 

*  *  *  For  this  tremendous  uudertsiking  capitalists  have  been  found ;  the  per- 
mission of  the  Government  for  its  erection  over  our  great  water-way  has  been  asked; 
there  seems  no  reason  to  doubt  that  it  can  and  eventually  will  be  built.  Yet  if  it 
were  begun  already,  the  growth  of  passenger  and  freight  traffic  cast  and  west  across 
the  Hudson  at  New  York  is  so  rapid  that  the  existing  facilities  will  have  to  be 
doubled  before  the  bridge  could  be  prepared  to  receive  trains. 

[The  Morning  Post,  London,  England,  August  25,  1888.) 

It  takes  a  good  deal  to  startle  the  Americans,  but  New  York  does  seem  to  have  been 
fairly  startled  by  a  project  which,  to  use  a  sporting  phrase,  beats  all  previous  records 
of  bridge  construction.  Mr.  Gustav  Lindenthal,  bridge  builder,  of  Pittsburgh,  Pa., 
proposes  to  construct  an  enoru>ous  suspension  bridge,  for  railway  traffic  and  other 
purposes,  across  the  Hudson  River  between  New^  York  City  and  the  north  New  Jersey 
shore.    The  bill  has  been  introduced  in  both  Houses  of  Congress. 

[From  tlie  Brooklyn  Eagle,  January  21,  1890.] 

Perhaps  it  was  thought  that  the  science  of  bridge  building  had  reached  its  highest 
development  in  the  graceful  structure  which  rose  to  view  beneath  the  hand  of  Roeb- 
ling,  but,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  the  Brooklyn  highway  was  no  more  in  advance  of  what  had 
preceded'it  than  the  proposed  North  River  bridge,  if  successfully  completed,  would  be 
in  advance  o(  our  own  magnificent  span.  The  need  of  closer  communication  between 
New  York  City  and  the  Jersey  shore  is  a  subject  which  has  long  been  agitated,  and 
now  there  has  arisen  a  company  which  talks  of  meeting  the  demand  by  constructing 
the  greatest  bridge  in  the  world.  What  is  equally  to  the  point  the  plan  may  be  deemed 
to  be  practicable,  inasmuch  as  it  was  designed  by  an  engineer  of  international  repu- 
tation, and  meets  with  the  indorsement  of  the  foremost  engineers.    *    *  * 

The  dimensions  of  the  proposed  structure  are  so  conspicuously  in  advance  of  those 
which  mark  the  proportions  of  the  Brooklyn  highway,  that  we  can  not  fail  to  admire 
the  daring  <»f  the  genius  which  has  jjlanned  the  work,  any  less  than  we  can  hoi>e  to 
see  it  brought  to  successful  comi)letion.  From  the  business  and  commercial  point  of 
view,  there  is  i)r()mise  of  even  greater  advantage  than  has  attended  the  construction 
of  the  Brooklyn  bridge,  for  the  missing  link  in  the  transportation  between  the  South 
and  the  Eastern  States  would  be  supplied,  and  this  woiild  mean  the  cheapening  of 
freight  rates  and  conseriuent  decrease  in  the  price  of  goods  landed  in  the  New  York 
markets.  *  *  Congress  might  reasonably  be  iisked  to  aid  the  enterprise  under 
conditions  which  would  guaranty  adequate  return  (^n  completion.  The  argument  is 
not  purely  local ;  it  embraces,  in  a  more  or  less  vital  degree,  the  interests  of  the  entire 
country. 


BRIDGE  ACROSS  THE  HUDSON  RIVER  AT  NEW  YORK  CITY.  41 


[From  the  Wasliingtou  Critic,  July  21,  1888.  J 

That  a  railway  bridge  will  eventually  span  the  Hudson  at  New  York,  a8  proposed 
by  the  present  projectors  f>r  upon  other  plans  yet  to  be  determined,  is  only  a  question 
of  time.  The  desij^ns  of  Mr.  Lindenthal,  the  engineer  of  the  company  now  seeking 
incorporation  by  Congress,  are  pronounced  by  other  engineers  to  be  both  admirable 
and  practicable,  and  the  necessily  of  such  a  crossing  for  the  accommodation  of  the 
900  railway  trains  now  arriving  daily  on  the  Jersey  side  of  the  river  is  of  course  ad- 
mitted. The  bridge  will  **come  high  "  as  to  cost,  but  the  investment  can  not  fail  to 
be  a  profitable  one,  and  the  whole  country,  especially  outside  of  New  England,  will 
welcome  the  structure  that  gives  it  unimpeded  access  to  the  metropolis,  as  the 
greatest  benefaction  of  this  conimorcial  age. 

[From  the  K  ew  York  Times,  Jannary  26,  1889.] 

What  New  York  most  needs  for  its  future  growth  and  prosperity  is  closer  con- 
nection with  the  territory  about  it.  The  more  tunnels  and  bridges  there  are  connect- 
ing Manhattan  Island  with  adjacent  lands,  provided  there  is  no  obstruction  of  navi- 
gation on  its  surrounding  waters,  the  better  for  the  city,  and  their  construction 
should  be  encouraged  and  promoted  in  every  legitimate  way.  The  one  great  ad- 
vantage of  this  city,  which  has  made  it  so  largely  the  emporium  of  the  country's 
commerce,  is  its  unsurpassed  harbor  and  its  unequalled  water  front.    *    *  * 

But  New  York's  advantage  from  accessibility  by  water,  and  the  facility  of  handling 
traffic  that  comes  and  goes  upon  that  clement,  has  been  considerably  offset  by  the 
break  in  communication  with  it  by  land,  save  in  one  direction.  This  adds  largely 
to  the  inconvenience  and  ex[)cuso  of  handling  traffic  by  rail,  and  is  a  serious  draw- 
back for  the  city.  The  easier  it  is  to  get  into  the  city  and  out  of  it,  and  the  less 
trouble  and  expense  it  involves,  the  better  for  its  growth  and  prosperity.    *    *  * 

*  *  *  Every  effort  of  capital  and  enterprise  to  supply  the  bonds  of  union  be- 
tween sections  of  the  metropelis,  and  to  give  it  a  more  perfect  connection  with  the 
channels  of  traffic  in  every  direction,  should  be  encouraged  and  promoted.  All  bar- 
riers should  be  removed,  and  our  borders  should  lie  open  to  the  workh 

[From  the  Xew  York  Tribune,  Deremher  1,  1889.1 

At  the  foot  of  Corfclandt,  Liberty,  Chambers,  and  other  streets,  and  along  the 
water  front  of  West  street,  are  all  the  fc^i  i  y-houses  through  which  passage  is  taken 
to  New  Jersey.  Not  less  than  l'JO,000  people  are  compelled  every  day  to  make  this 
perilous  journey  across  West  street,  and  the  wonder  is  how  they  ever  manage  to  do 
it  without  being  drawn  into  a  whirlpool  of  slime,  muck,  wheels,  hoofs,  and  destruc- 
tion. ^  *  *  Think  of  Macauley'a  enlightened  New  Zealander  standing  on  the  top 
of  the  Pennsylvania  ferry-house  watching  that  fearful  scene.  Hear  him  gasp  with 
amazement  ^nd  vexation,  ''Why  in  thunder  don't  these  people  get  up  a  revolution 
or  build  abridge?"  [Namely,  over  West  street]. 

[From  the  Saratogian,  Saratoga  Springs,  N.  Y.,  January  10,  1889. 

A  bridge  across  the  Huds:on  River  at  New  York?  If  all  this  little  sentence  contains 
is  not  apparent  to  any  individual,  let  him  visit  New  York  and  look  over  the  ground, 
or  rather  the  water,  for  there  is  enough  of  water  between  New  York  and  Jersey  City 
to  stagger  any  bridge  builder  who  has  lived  up  to  the  present  time.  Across  the 
Hudson — not  under  it  or  on  its  bosom,  but  above — so  far  above  that  the  great  ships 
and  steamers  having  their  docks  further  up  may  go  in  and  out  without  being  hin- 
dered. 

The  problem  of  getting  passengers  and  freight  from  New  York  to  Jersey  City,  and 
rice  versa,  by  some  better  methocl  than  ferriage,  has  long  stared  the  officers  of  rail- 
roads centering  in  Jersey  City  in  the  face.    ^    *  * 

It  will  be  well  to  crown  the  gigantic  works  of  the  nineteenth  century  with  the 
building  of  this  proposed  bridge.  It  seems  fitting  that  the  century  which  produced 
the  Atlantic  cable  should  not  go  out  without  the  completion  of  some  great  engineer- 
ing feat,  and  a  bridge  at  New  York,  across  the  Hudson,  would  be  a  fitting  work  with 
which  to  close  the  magnificent  list  of  triumphs.    *    *  * 

A  bill  is  before  Congress  to  permit  the  building  of  this  bridge,  and  there  is  no  rea- 
son to  suppose  the  request  will  be  refused. 

[From  the  Commercial  Gazette,  Pittaburgh,  Pa.] 

The  East  River  bridge,  which  unites  New  York  and  Brooklyn  and  the  collection  of 
towns  upon  Long  Island,  and  which  was  opened  for  general  traffic  some  six  years  ago, 
has  proved  how  far  behind  the  reality  the  boldest  predictions  respecting  the  growth 
of  traffic  between  the  two  cities  have  turned  out  to  be.  When  the  project  of  an  East 
River  brige  was  tir.st  mooted,  some  twenty  years  ago,  it  was  held  to  bo  impracticable 
and  extravagant;  but,  as  it  approached  completion,  the  forcshadowings  of  its  great 
utility  called  into  life  the  project  of  a  permanent  way  acro.ss  the  North  River.  The 
great  width  Jtnd  depth  of  the  Hudson,  however,  seemed  to  render  the  serious  consid- 
eration of  a  bridge  project  useless,    *    *  * 


42      BRIDGE  ACROSS  THE  HUDSON  RIVER  AT  NEW  YORK  CITY. 


Gustav  Liiideullial,  the  bridge  eugineer,  has  formed  a  project  to  cross  the  Hudson 
with  a  colossal  suspeDsion  bridge,  with  a  single  span  of  2,850  feet.  This  is  the  great- 
est length  of  8i)au  lor  a  bridge  that  has  ever  been  planned. 

[From  the  New  York  Sun,  July  6,  1888.] 

The  bill  which  has  just  been  introduced  into  Congress,  authorizing  the  construction 
of  a  bridge  across  the  Hudson  between  the  city  of  New  York  and  the  New  Jersey- 
coast,  presents  several  features  of  importance.  It  is  to  be  a  railroad  bridge  as  well 
as  for  other  travel;  in  fact,  from  the  points  at  which  it  would  necessarily  be  con- 
structed, its  chief  immediate  importance  would  be  for  railways. 

The  great  commercial  convenience  of  opening  an  all-rail  route  from  New  York  to 
the  West  and  South,  avoiding  the  present  barge  work  for  freight  and  ferrying  for 
passengers  must  be- obvious.    *    *  * 

A  noticeable  feature  is,  that  it  is  to  be  constructed  with  asingle  span  over  the  entire 
river  ;  and  this  is  not  to  be  done  by  advancing  the  terminal  piers  beyond  the  present 
wharf  line,  since  it  is  expressly  provided  that  they  must  be  kept  within  that  line. 
This  provision  must  disarm  at  the  outset  the  main  opposition  hitherto  encountered 
against  a  bridge.  *  *  *  Another  provision  is,  that  the  bridge  shall  have  at  least 
140  feet  in  the  clear,  above  the  level  of  ordinary  high  water. 

[From  the  Statesman,  Tonkers,  N.  T.,  April  9,  1889.] 

When  the  East  River  bridge  was  first  broached,  the  idea  was  disaparaged  by  all 
the  old  fossils  who  never  fail  to  predict  insuperable  obstacles  in  the  face  of  enterprise. 

The  saiy^e  spirit  will  be  sure  to  be  opposed  in  certain  quarters  to  the  North  River 
bridge,  wbicli,  it  is  thought,  will  some  day  facilitate  communication  betw^een  New 
York  and  Jerbcy  City.    *    *  * 

The  conteniplated  completion  of  the  bridge  is  ten  years  hence ;  but,  if  we  allow 
only  two  years  for  incidental  delays  (and  ten  years  are  very  little  to  allow),  we  pre- 
sume the  sat  isfaction  wi;l  be  all  but  universal  if  rapid  transit  is  thus  efi'ected  by  the 
close  of  the  first  year  of  the  twentieth  century. 

[From  the  Journal,  Newark,  IsT.  J.,  January,  1890.] 

This  is  truly  a  magnificent  conception,  and  its  realization  would  be  the  wondt^r  of 
a  world  accustomed  to  stupendous  undertakings.  The  engineering  difficulties  are 
not  such  that  could  not  be  overcome  as  readily  as  those  involved  in  the  corstructiou 
of  the  Brooklyn  bridge. 

.  [Brooklyn  Times,  March  6,  1890.  J 

Engineer  Liudenthal  explained  his  great  Hudson  River  bridge  to  a  Congressional 
Committee  yesterday.  It  will  be  a  fine  thing  for  New  York  and  for  New  Jersey,  and 
Congress  need  not  hesitate  to  authorize  it. 

[Rochester  Herald,  March  10,  1890.] 

New  York's  greatest  need  is  for  rapid  transit  between  the  business  part  of  the  city 
and  the  resident  portion  and  the  suburbs.  In  only  one  direction  can  the  people  get 
out  by  steam  cars,  and  that  is  over  the  New  York  Central.  A  great  many  New  York 
business  men  make  their  homes  in  New  Jersey  or  on  Long  Island,  either  of  which  is 
reached  by  ferries  always  overcrowded  at  the  busiest  hours,  and  often  delayed  by  fog 
and  ice.  The  exception  is  found  in  the  Brooklyn  bridge,  which  from  the  immense 
throngs  that  cross  it  night  and  morning  is  more  uncomfortable  even  than  the  ferry- 
boats. Rapid  transit  over  an  immense  bridge  to  New  Jersey  would  afford  relief  and 
comfort. 

[From  Engineering  News,  January  7,  1888.] 

A  paper  of  remarkable  and  unusual  interest  was  read  at  the  Wednesday  meeting 
of  the  American  Society  of  Civil  Engineers,  by  Mr.  Gustav  Liudenthal,  of  Pitts- 
burgh, Pa.,  outlining  in  detail  the  great  project  of  a  six-track  railroad  suspension 
bridge  over  North  River,  which  Mr.  Liudenthal  has  been  engaged  in  studying  lor  some 
time,  under  auspices  wliich,  we  are  assured,  give  strong  promise  of  an  early  begin- 
ning of  the  work.  The  necessity  for  some  such  costly  and  monumental  structure  is 
becoming  so  clear  that  only  the  enormous  cost  of  it  (some  $15,000,000)  for  the  bridge 
only,  and  perhaps  doubt  as  to  its  unprecedented  engineering  problem,  can  delay  it 
long.  But  the  cost  is  certainly  not  so  formidable  an  obstacle  for  to-day  as  was  that 
of  the  Brooklyn  Bridge  for  18(58,  when  its  construction  was  determined  on,  nor  does 
vastness  of  itself  imply  corresponding  technical  difficulties,  while  there  is  probably 
no  one  on  either  side  of  the  ocean  who  could  be  counted'on  more  confidently  to  deal 
successfully  with  the  intricate  engineering  problems  involved  than  Mr.  Lindeuthal. 
Certainly,  no  one  of  the  eminent  eugineers  who  have  already  constructed  great  Jong- 
span  bridges  could  have  been  justly  regarded  as  better  equipped  for  his  work  at  its 
inception. 

o 


